Montgomery V Risen #63 - P Opp To Motion To Dismiss - S.D.fla. - 1-15-Cv-20782 - 63 - P Opp To Motion To Dismiss W ExA&M

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 1 of 51
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-20782-JEM
v.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
JAMES RISEN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
OVER RISEN AND HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT COMPANY, DISMISS OR
TRANSFER FOR IMPROPER VENUE, TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), OR
DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss Or Transfer For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over Risen and Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Company, Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue, Transfer Under 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), or Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Memorandum in Support.
First, and fundamentally, a plaintiff has a right to pick the forum in which to bring his
claim. Venue is proper in Florida and this state has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants.
Defendant Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company has a general office in Orlando,
Florida, and is registered to do business in the state of Florida with the Florida Department of
State, Division of Corporations. See Montgomery Declaration II 58 (Exhibit A). The causes of
In reviewing this pleading, the Court is respectfully asked to read and review carefully
Plaintiff Montgomerys two Declarations (Declaration I and Declaration II) with incorporated
exhibits, sworn to under oath, attached hereto as Exhibit A and M, respectively. These
Declarations support the allegations of the Amended Complaint.
action arise directly from regular business of the publisher in its Orlando office and other offices
from the publication and sale of books. Clearly, Defendant publisher thought Florida to be
important enough of a state to establish a separate, general office here. Exhibit A 60.
Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Florida. Exhibit A 54. In 2011, Plaintiff
incorporated two businesses with another partner in Florida to pursue contracts with the military
and U.S. Government at bases in Florida. Exhibit A 67, 68. He is registered to vote and has a
permanent residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida (as well as a Miami telephone number),
Exhibit A 55, even though Defendants misled this Court and falsely claimed that he was not
registered to vote in Florida in an affidavit submitted by defense counsel Laura Handman. Ms.
Handmans affidavit, which she submitted in support of Defendants two motions to dismiss,
was false, as previously discussed in the conference before the Court on April 14, 2015. Exhibit
A 56.
Readers of the Book being exposed to the defamatory statements are in Florida. The
damage to Plaintiff occurred primarily in Florida, among other places. Defamation law provides
that the essence of defamation is injury to ones reputation, community, and home, which in this
case is in Florida. Simply put, under Florida law, it is the damage and harm in that community
which counts most. This is the principal reason Florida is the appropriate place to bring suit. The
jury needs to be ones peers in the community. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to depose and call at
trial important witnesses in Florida from Macdill Air Force Base and Eglin Air Force Base,
which are the centers of U.S. counterterrorism military and intelligence operations, through U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
These witnesses and offices are also where much of the Plaintiffs loss of reputation has taken
place and is taking place. Exhibit A 78. Defendants, each and every one of them, have
subjected those involved in his work to the negative, defamatory and false reports about the
2
Plaintiff. Exhibit A 7-53.

Plaintiff has stated a valid and indeed overwhelming claim of defamation in Causes of
Action I-III as well as for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Cause of Action IV,
tortious interference with prospective advantage in Cause of Action V, and common law assault
under Cause of Action VI.
Defendants published several libelous and slanderous statements in Defendants Book
and in radio, television, and newspaper interviews, alongside many other statements in addition.
Defendants published both defamatory and a few non-defamatory statements. The fact that
Defendants also may have made a few opinion-based statements in addition to defamatory
statements about Plaintiff does not immunize their libelous statements which they actually
published in Florida and elsewhere.
Moreover, Defendants defamation is not fair reporting. Exhibit A 7. As Defendants tout
at the beginning of the Book, the publication is based on new, confidential information from
various Government sources, which has been distorted and falsified knowingly and/or recklessly,
and is not the result of simply republishing previous Playboy and The New York Times articles.
Otherwise, there logically would be no reason for the Book. Certainly tongue-in-check, looking
at Playboy would be a more sexy read. But, by publishing new and never before disclosed
false and misleading sensational and defamatory information, this allowed Defendants to draw
in readers and sell books in Florida and elsewhere. Thus, Defendants boast to the reader at page
ix of their Book:
[m]any people have criticized the use of anonymous sources. Yet all reported
know that the very best stories the most important, the most sensitive rely on
them. This book would not be possible without the cooperation of many current
and former government officials and other individuals who were willing to
discuss sensitive matters only on the condition of anonymity.
Even where Defendants sometimes did put their defamation occasionally in the voice of
3
other persons in previously published materials, still Defendants conspicuously reported only a
narrow slice of the overall story, massively tilted unfairly and dishonestly. Defendants cannot
claim to be engaged in fair reporting while presenting only one small part of the story,
however false, dramatically distorting the truth so as to defame Plaintiff.
Similarly, Defendants published non-opinion, non-hyperbole defamation against Plaintiff,
harming him in his profession. The fact that Defendants did include a few examples of opinion
(that is, throwing in adjectives or mentioning greed) or hyperbole mixed in with clear defamatory
factually based statements does not transform their intent to harm Plaintiff in Florida and
elsewhere.
In addition, the totality of the communication is also highly relevant. Statements that
might not be defamatory on their own can and do add to the total message of defamation. The
defamatory statements are set forth in excruciating detail in the Amended Complaint. See
Amended Complaint at 106, 109, 111, 116, 119-137, 141, 145, 149, 151, 157, 168, 181, 183,
185-235.
Finally, Plaintiff is not a public figure, despite Defendants disingenuous suggestion that
unrelated events turn Plaintiff into a limited public figure. Exhibit A 39-43. Plaintiff worked
undercover for U.S. intelligence agencies in Florida in particular. To become a public figure
would have put him and his family at great risk from domestic and foreign terrorists and others.
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION

A) The Case and Tortious Harm Took Place Inside Florida
Defendants published a physical book Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War
(referred to as the Book or Book) by author Defendant James Risen, Copyright (c) 2014 by
Defendant James Risen, designated by the Library of Congress by its index system as ISBN 9780-544-34141-8 (hardback edition). See title pages, Exhibit B, attached.
4
The publisher, Defendant Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, maintains

permanent and general offices and thus does business and has employees in Orlando, Florida,
at 9400 Southpark Center Loop, Orlando, Florida 32819. See Exhibit C, attached;
http://www.hmhco.com/about-hmh/our-offices; see also Exhibit A 57.
Defendant Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company is registered to do business in Florida
through the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. See Exhibit D, attached. In
2008, Defendant changed its name with the State of Florida from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
to Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company. Id; Exhibit A at 59.
Defendants willfully shipped the Book to Florida in order to sell books on Florida
bookstore shelves. Defendants knowingly and intentionally caused physical products, the Book,
to be sent to Florida and sold in Florida. Moreover, the defamation is contained within the
physical product physically shipped into Florida for sale for profits. Exhibit A at 61.
Defendants rely significantly upon sales in Florida and the rest of the Southeast of the United
States through a company called Amazon for very substantial sales over the Internet.
Amazons regional distribution centers or fulfillment centers are located in Ruskin, Florida in
Hillsborough County and Lakeland, Florida, and in Polk County, Florida. See Exhibit E,
attached; see also Exhibit A 60.
The publisher also makes extensive use of the marketplace in Florida, shipping hundreds
of thousands of different books to Florida for sale every year, not only the Book by Defendant
Risen. The Book was purchased in Florida, as shown in the affidavit attached under Exhibit F.
Defendant James Risen is earning royalties off of the Book physically sold in Florida and he
intended to publish his Book with a publisher who would distribute it in every state. Defendant
Risen, and the other Defendants, intended to aim the Book at and into Florida. Amended
Complaint at 12; Exhibit A 81.
5
Florida is the third largest state and military, intelligence and other active and retired
persons spend time reading books. Thus, the significant intelligence and military personnel in
Florida, which has skyrocketed thanks to Floridas wealth, lack of personal income tax, as well
as the military facilities located here, form a vast readership along with the rest of the states
citizens and residents. Exhibit A 66.
Defendant James Risen published false and misleading statements on national television
and in radio interviews discussing his book. In doing so, he primarily spoke of and defamed
Plaintiff Dennis Montgomery, essentially ignoring the rest of his Book in those interviews while
intentionally attacking a private individual, Plaintiff Montgomery. This was intended to sell
books by sensationalizing and defaming Montgomery, who is the primary focus. Exhibit A 83.
However, the purpose and effect of those interviews was to drive sales of the Book as a
physical product, including in Florida as the nations third largest state by population and where
huge viewer and readership are present. Exhibit A 66; 83. Thus, Risens interviews were not
comments having an unanticipated effect in Florida, but sales pitches calculated to cause
listeners to purchase physical books inside Florida as well as other states. Id. Again, Defendant
Risen offered a juicy, sensational and defamatory story about a private citizen allegedly
defrauding the President of the United States into nearly shooting down civilian airliners. The
defamation is a commercial advertising marketing scam, however dishonest and defamatory, to
sell books and to stimulate large sales of the Book in Florida in particular. Amended Complaint,
42; Exhibit A 84.
Risens Book casts his leftist blame on U.S. Government leaders and officials for
mishandling the war on terror and over-reacting. Risen portrays the global threats as far
smaller, less real, and less imminent than national leaders during the Bush Administration. Yet
in Chapter 2, the defamatory blame shifts primarily to a private individual, Plaintiff Dennis
6
Montgomery, who is the focal point and whipping boy of the sensationalized libel. Defendant
Risen swerves out of his lane to sideswipe and defame Montgomery big time. This is too much
to be accidental or a result of fair reporting particularly since the defamatory statements are not
primarily based on republications of Playboy and other articles and documents, but instead new
information, however false, from so-called confidential sources distorted and falsified by Risen,
as the author and publisher boasts at page ix of their Book.
On Page 32 of the Book, Defendants knowingly published these factually false and
misleading statements about Plaintiff:
Whatever else he was, Dennis Montgomery was a man who understood how best
to profit from Americas decade of fear. He saw the post-9/11 age for what it was,
a time to make money. Montgomery was the maestro behind what many current
and former U.S. officials and others familiar with the case now believe was one of
the most elaborate and dangerous hoaxes in American history, a ruse that was so
successful that it nearly convinced the Bush administration to order fighter
jets to start shooting down commercial airliners filled with passengers over
the Atlantic. Once it was over, once the fever broke and government officials
realized that they had been taken in by a grand illusion, they did absolutely
nothing about it. The Central Intelligence Agency buried the whole insane
episode and acted like it had never happened. The Pentagon just kept
working with Montgomery. Justice Department lawyers fanned out across
the country to try to block any information about Montgomery and his
schemes from becoming public, invoking the state secrets privilege in public,
a series of civil lawsuits involving Montgomery. It was as if everyone in
Washington was afraid to admit that the Emperor of the War on Terror had
no clothes.
See Amended Complaint 106. (Emphasis added). On Page 32 of the Book, Defendants
knowingly published these knowingly factually false and misleading statements about the
Plaintiff:
Consider the example of Dennis Montgomery. He provides a perfect case study
to explain how during the war on terror greed and ambition have been married to
unlimited rivers of cash to create a climate in which someone who has been
accused of being a con artist was able to create a rogue intelligence operation with
little or no adult supervision. Crazy became the new normal in the war on terror,
and the original objectives of the war got lost in the process.
See Amended Complaint 109. On Page 33 of the Book, Defendants knowingly published these
factually false and misleading statements about the Plaintiff:
A former medical technician, a self-styled computer software expert with no
experience whatsoever in national security affairs, Dennis Montgomery almost
singlehandedly prompted President Bush to ground a series of international
commercial flights based on what now appears to have been an elaborate hoax.
Even after it appeared that Montgomery had pulled off a scheme of amazing
scope, he still had die-hard supporters in the government who steadfastly
refused to believe the evidence suggesting that Montgomery was a fake, and
who rejected the notion that the super-secret computer software that he
foisted on the Pentagon and CIA was anything other than Americas
salvation.
knowingly published factually false and misleading statements about Plaintiff: Montgomerys
story demonstrates how hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the war on terror went
to waste. See Amended Complaint 213. (Emphasis added). On Page 34 of the Book,
Defendants knowingly published these factually false and misleading statements about
Plaintiff:
Montgomery was an overweight, middle-aged, incorrigible gambler, a man who
liked to play long odds because he was convinced that he could out-think the
house. He once boasted to a business partner that he had a system for
counting an eight-deck blackjack shoe, quite a difficult feat for even the best
card sharks, and he regularly tested his theories at the El Dorado and the
Peppermill Casino in Reno. He usually came up short but that didnt stop
him from playing blackjack on a nightly basis, racking up unwieldy debts
that eventually led to his 2010 arrest for bouncing more than $1 million in
bad checks at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.
knowingly published factually false and misleading statements about Plaintiff: Michael Flynn,
Montgomerys former lawyer who later concluded that Montgomery was a fraud. On Page 37
of the Book, Defendants published these factually false and misleading statements about
Plaintiff:
By the spring and summer of 2003, eTreppid was awarded contracts by both the
air force and U.S. Special Operations Command. Montgomery was able to win
over the government in part by offering field tests of his technology tests that
former employees say were fixed to impress visiting officials. Warren Trepp later
told the FBI that he eventually learned that Montgomery had no real computer
software programming skills, according to court documents that include his
statements to the FBI. Trepp also described to federal investigators how
eTreppid employees had confided to him that Montgomery had asked them
to help him falsify tests of his object recognition software when Pentagon
officials came to visit. Trepp said that on one occasion, Montgomery told two
eTreppid employees to go into an empty office and push a button on a
computer when they heard a beep on a cell phone. Meanwhile, Montgomery
carried a toy bazooka into a field outside eTreppid. He was demonstrating to
a group of visiting U.S. military officials that his technology could recognize
the bazooka from a great distance.
See Amended Complaint 121. (Emphasis added). Interestingly, Defendant Risen publishes that
eTreppid was awarded contracts by both the Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command.
The U.S. Special Operations Command is located in Dade County in Florida. Exhibit A 75. On
Page 37 of the Book, Defendants knowingly published these factually false and misleading
statements about Plaintiff:
After he was in place in the field, he used a hidden cell phone to buzz the cell
phone of one the eTreppid employees, who then pushed a key on a computer
keyboard, which in turn flashed an image of a bazooka on another screen
prominently displayed in front of the military officers standing in another
room, according to court documents. The military officers were convinced
that Montgomerys computer software had amazingly detected and
recognized the bazooka in Montgomerys hands. (Montgomery insists that the
eTreppid employees lied when they claimed that he had asked them to fix the
tests, and also says that the air force issued a report showing that it had verified
the tests.
knowingly published these factually false and misleading statements about Plaintiff:
That meant that Brennans office was responsible for circulating Montgomerys
fabricated intelligence to officials in the highest reaches of the Bush
administration. But Brennan was never admonished for his role in the affair. After
Barack Obama became president, Brennan was named to be his top
counterterrorism advisor in the White House. He later became CIA director.
9
See Amended Complaint 134. On Page 40 of the Book, Defendants knowingly

published these factually false and misleading statements about the Plaintiff:
Montgomery sold the CIA on the fantasy that al Qaeda was using the
broadcasts to digitally transmit its plans for future terrorist attacks. And
only he had the technology to decode those messages, thus saving America
from another devastating attack. The CIA more credulous than Hollywood
or Las Vegas fell for Montgomerys claims. In short, he convinced CIA
officials that he could detect terrorist threats by watching television.
Montgomery brilliantly played on the CIAs technical insecurities as well as the
agencys woeful lack of understanding about al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. He
was able to convince the CIA that he had developed a secret new technology
that enabled him to decipher al Qaeda codes embedded in the network
banner displayed on the broadcasts of Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news
network. Montgomery sold the CIA on the fantasy that al Qaeda was using
the broadcasts to digitally transmit its plans for future terrorist attacks. And
only he had the technology to decode those messages, thus saving America
from another devastating attack. The CIA more credulous than Hollywood
or Las Vegas fell for Montgomerys claims. In short, he convinced CIA
officials that he could detect terrorist threats by watching television.
What remains unclear is how Montgomery was able to convince all of them that
he had developed secret software that could decode Al Qaedas invisible
messages. While he had gotten by a few credulous military officers who came
to view his demonstrations, he apparently found it just as easy to persuade
the CIA as well.
A CIA official defensively pointed out that the agency did not actually have a
contract with eTreppid at the time Montgomery was providing data from the
Al Jazeera videotapes. While they were working closely together during the
final months of 2003, the CIA had not yet started paying Montgomery, the
official said. The agency never finalized a contract with him because agency
10
staff eventually realized they had been conned, according to this official. But
that does not diminish the fact that for a few crucial months, the CIA took
Montgomery and his technology very seriously.
See Amended Complaint 128. (Emphasis added). Importantly, this passage demonstrates that
Defendant Risen received this from the inside, and then distorted, falsified and perverted
knowingly and/or recklessly it to suit his leftist agenda and marketing ends. It is not primarily a
result of fair privilege as discussed in detail below.
On Page 46 of the Book, Defendants knowingly published these factually false and
misleading statements about Plaintiff:
It did not take long for the French firm to conclude that the whole thing was
a hoax. The French company said that there were simply not enough pixels
in the broadcasts to contain hidden bar codes or unseen numbers. The firm
reported back to the French government that the supposed intelligence was a
fabrication.
See Amended Complaint 130. (Emphasis added). On Page 50 of the Book, the
Defendants knowingly published these factually false and misleading statements about the
Plaintiff:
Edra Blixseth was Dennis Montgomerys latest mark. After being introduced
to him by a former Microsoft executive and then hearing Montgomery
explain his software, she agreed in 2006 to bankroll Montgomery to launch a
new company, to be called Blxware. Montgomery needed new government
contracts for Blxware, and Edra Blixseth had the money and contacts to try
to make it happen.
See Amended Complaint 137. (Emphasis added). Defendants main defamation that is
destructive of Plaintiffs reputation and business prospects past, present and future is
Defendants nationwide announcement, based on a false and misleading recitation of facts
obtained from so-called intelligence officials that Defendant Risen knew or had a strong reason
to know were false based on the representations by Plaintiff himself, that Plaintiffs work
product and his contracts with intelligence agencies were a hoax. As a result, Plaintiff and
11
relevant witnesses and proof confirm, inter alia, that Dennis Montgomerys software and
technology does work, always did work, was correctly held in high regard by President George
W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies.
and is still being used now by the U.S. Government (allowing for updating of versions). See
Exhibit A 18.
In sum, Plaintiff, who has been severely defamed by Defendants, is a citizen of Florida.
He has a residence in Florida, a Miami-Dade County phone number and he is registered to vote
in Florida. See Exhibit G, attached; Exhibit A 54. In 2011, long before Defendants Book was
published, in furtherance of his longstanding decision to reside to Florida, he created with the
Florida Department of State two companies in Florida with a Florida partner to pursue business
opportunities and contracts with U.S. Government and military offices and/or bases in Florida.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) are
located in Florida and Plaintiff Montgomery, as proven by his contracts, dealt with Florida and
relied on Florida for business. See Exhibit H, attached; Exhibit A 72. Thus, the defamation was
aimed at and severely damaged Plaintiff in his state of Florida.
B) Events, Connections, and Witnesses
Plaintiff intends to depose and call witnesses of the legitimacy of his defamed work based
at Macdill Air Base near Tampa, Florida and at Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton Beach,
Florida, where he did a lot of his work, as some of his most significant witnesses are in Florida.
Those locales are where the CENTCOM, U.S. Southern Command and SOCOM facilities are
located. Exhibit J, Exhibit L, respectively. They were and are the hub of U.S. counterterrorism
and military and intelligence operations, particularly since September 11, 2001. See Contract
between eTreppid and U.S. Special Operations Command HQ at Macdill Air Force Base, Florida
33621, attached as Exhibit I; see also Exhibit A 67.
12
There are technical and national security reasons as to why work being done in Florida,
especially at Macdill or Eglin, would be well suited to Dennis Montgomerys experience,
capabilities, contacts, and opportunities. Id.
III.
FACTS AND LAW SHOWING PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND AGAINST

TRANSFER AND VENUE
A) Defendants Concede Jurisdiction over Publisher HMH
Defendants Motion concedes personal jurisdiction of this Court in Florida over the
publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. The Motion appears to challenge
personal jurisdiction only with regard to the parent holding company HMH Holdings, Inc. and
James Risen. See Defendants Motion, Argument, Section A, page 12.
As previously shown, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt maintains permanent and general
offices in Orlando, Florida at 9400 Southpark Center Loop, Orlando, Florida 32819. See Exhibit
C, attached; http://www.hmhco.com/about-hmh/our-offices. It is well-established law that a
party and corporation may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state if it has minimum contacts with
that state. Since Defendant publisher has permanent and general offices in the state of Florida
and actively does and solicits business in the state of Florida, the Court has personal jurisdiction
over the publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
U.S. 310 (1945); See also Exhibit D, Exhibit K.
B) Plaintiffs Complaint and Declarations I and II Establish Jurisdiction, Venue
On a motion to dismiss a case claiming lack of jurisdiction, the court is "obligated to
assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor."
Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On a motion to dismiss under FRCP
Rule 12(b)(1), a federal court must accept as true all material factual allegations contained in the
complaint and construe the complaint liberally, granting plaintiff the benefit of all inferences
13
that can be derived from the acts alleged and upon such facts determine jurisdictional
questions. Am. Natl Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Thomas
v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1199
(D.C. Cir. 2004))); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
The allegations of the Amended Complaint must be taken as true for the purposes of the
motion to dismiss, such as Amended Complaint 3-6:
The Causes of Action and the injuries were caused to Plaintiff by the Defendants
defamation and other tortious conduct in this district, Florida in general,
nationwide, and internationally.
In addition, some of the most recent commercial opportunities for the Plaintiffs
work were contracts and projects made available through military bases and
Government facilities in Florida.
The State of Florida is the third (3rd) largest state by population within the entire
United States such that a huge and substantial portion of the nationwide harm has
occurred in Florida.
Dennis L. Montgomery is a natural person, an individual, and a citizen of the
United States. He is a citizen of Florida, which as set forth above, is where much
of this work has taken place and will continue to take place.
C) Defendants Physical Products in Florida Bookstores Distinguish Case
A federal district court in Florida may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant to the same extent that a Florida court may, so long as the exercise is consistent with
federal due process requirements. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1), (h), and (k); Sculptchair, Inc. v.
Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 626-27 (11th Cir. 1996). If both Florida law and the United
States Constitution permit, the federal district court may exercise jurisdiction over the
nonresident defendant. Id.
The essence of defamation is that a defamed person is injured in his or her community,
reputation, and where they live. As the Supreme Court of Florida has explained:
14
. . . For the tort of false light, the standard is whether the statement is highly
offensive to a reasonable person. Id. 652E(a). Conversely, a defamatory
statement is one that tends to harm the reputation of another by lowering him
or her in the estimation of the community or, more broadly stated, one that
exposes a plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt or injures his business or
reputation or occupation. Standard Jury InstructionsCivil Cases (No. 00-1),
795 So.2d at 55.
. . . A false light plaintiff must prove that the publicity would be "highly offensive
to a reasonable person," whereas a defamation plaintiff must prove injury to his
or her reputation in the community. As explained by the Ohio Supreme Court in
recognizing false light, "in defamation cases the interest sought to be protected is
the objective one of reputation, either economic, political, or personal, in the
outside world. In privacy cases the interest affected is the subjective one of injury
to [the] inner person." Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464, 866 N.E.2d
1051, 1057 (2007) (emphases added) (quoting Crump v. Beckley Newspapers,
Inc., 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70, 83 (1984)).
Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1109, 2008 WL 4659374 (Fla. 2008) (Emphasis
added).
This case is readily distinguishable from general precedents cited by Defendants
concerning only nationwide statements without more. Defendants cite Buckley v. New York
Times Co., Calder v. Jones, Madera v. Hall, Revel v. Lidov, Busch v. Viacom International Inc.,
Walden v. Fiore, Alternate Energy Corp. v. Redstone, alleging that personal jurisdiction may be
improper in Florida. Defendants are incorrect and the cited case law is inapposite to the facts and
circumstances presented here.
In Buckley, a non-binding U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit)
district, the court held that mere circulation does not satisfy due process. Buckley v. New York
Times Co., 338 F.2d 470, 474 (5th Cir. 1964). But, Defendants fail to mention that in Buckley,
part of the courts decision rested with the fact that the corporation being sued had no office,
place of business, officers, agents or employees in the state of issue. It had no assets within the
State . . . Id. at 473. Moreover, for the Charleston Gazette, no subscription solicitation was
made, for the Cincinnati Post and Times Star, an average of only thirteen copies of this paper
15
was circulated, The New York Times Company sent less than a thousandth of one per cent, of its
newspapers from New York to the state at issue, the Florida Times-Union had an average of only
ten subscribers in the state at issue. While the mere circulation through the mails to subscribers
and independent distributors id, does not constitute business activity, that has nothing to do with
the facts here. Here, hundreds of thousands of books were distributed to and sold in Florida.
Calder ironically supports Plaintiff Montgomerys position that personal jurisdiction
exists over Defendants in his state, Florida. There, the Court found jurisdiction proper where the
harm occurred to Plaintiff. . . . [P]etitioners are primary participants in an alleged wrongdoing
intentionally directed at a California resident, and jurisdiction over them is proper on that basis.
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984). Here, such as the Court found in Calder, the harm
intentionally directed at Plaintiff Montgomery occurred in Florida, where Defendants aimed their
tortious actions because Defendants intentionally projected themselves into Florida.
In Madara, because the defendant had no agents and did not have an office in Florida, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit) ruled that to subject [] Hall
to the jurisdiction of a Florida court in this case would offend due process. Madara v. Hall, 916
F.2d 1510, 1519 (11th Cir. 1990). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company has a general
office in Orlando, Florida, and is registered to do business in the State of Florida with the Florida
Department of State, Division of Corporations. Moreover, SOCOM and CENTCOM and other
U.S. government facilities, the center of U.S. counterintelligence military and counterterrorism
command, are located in Florida. Florida is a huge military state and that Plaintiff Montgomery
did and does business here as a result which Defendants knew about, Defendants aimed their
defamatory statements into Florida.
Revell is also distinguishable. A Fifth Circuit case premised on a website posting is not at
all analogous to the situation here. There, the Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of personal
16
jurisdiction because the author did not know plaintiff resided in the forum, the article did not
mention the forum, and no newsgathering occurred in the forum. Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467,
473-75 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, Defendants were well aware that the hub of U.S. intelligence and
military counterterrorism operations were and remain in Florida and that is where Plaintiff had
significant contacts and did work. Amended Complaint 4, 12, 53, 248.
Alternate Energy Corp. supports Plaintiffs claims that personal jurisdiction over
Defendants is proper in Florida. Again, this case deals with an isolated Internet posting. Yet the
court holds that . . . engaging in commercial activity over the internet constitutes sufficient
minimum contacts to satisfy due process requirements, but merely posting information on the
internet does not. Alternate Energy Corp. v. Redstone, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1382 (S.D. Fla.
2004). Here, the Book was offered for sale, and sold in Florida, a huge market. And Defendant
Houghlin Mifflin has a corporate office in Florida and is registered to do business in the state.
In Busch, a non-binding U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas case, the
court found no personal jurisdiction because [the defendant] did not visit Texas, call Texas or
conduct any interviews or research in Texas related to the piece . . . Busch v. Viacom
International Inc., 477 F. Supp. 2d 764, 772-73 (N.D. Tex 2007). But here, as discussed above,
there are significant contacts with Florida as detailed above.
Also distinguishable, in Walden v. Fiore, the Court found that the plaintiff cannot be the
only link between the defendant and the forum. Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014).
A defendants suit-related conduct must have a substantial connection to the forum . . . Id. at
1121. That is more than true here.
Defendants physically shipped books, as physical products, into Florida with the
knowledge and intent that the books would be placed on Florida bookstore shelves and sold
inside Florida. See Exhibit A 61; Exhibit F. Furthermore, Defendant Risens appearances on
17
radio and television were not just commentary but attempts to stimulate the sale of books inside
Florida and elsewhere. Risen was speaking on radio and television to move books off of Florida
bookstores and shelves and to the checkout counter in Florida. See Exhibit F.
Personal jurisdiction under constitutional minimum contacts with Florida and under
Floridas long-arm statute are clearly established under Renaissance Health v. Resveratrol
Partners, 982 So.2d 739 (Fla. App. 2008), in which the defaming out-of-state defendant made
the statements to help sell their own products and books in competition with the plaintiff.
In Renaissance Health v. Resveratrol Partners, the defamation was to co-opt the sales of
competitors products and books in Florida. This is similar to, but less direct, than Defendants
efforts here to sell their own books in Florida. The Florida Appeals Court there said:
The purpose of the alleged business defamation in this case was to convince
consumers to purchase the defendants' products and not the plaintiff's. Sales to
Florida residents through the interactive website totaled 2.4% of Resveratrol's
total gross domestic sales; Sardi sold books and e-books to Florida residents
realizing $2,101.83 in sales. Such commercial activity within Florida is
sufficient to subject the defendants to jurisdiction herewhere a defendant
disparages a competitor's products to enhance its own commercial sales in a state
where the competitor has its corporate headquarters, the defendant could
"reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S.
783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (quoting World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d
490 (1980)); See Hartoy, Inc. v. Thompson, 2003 WL 21468079 (S.D.Fla.2003)
(involving five orders from defendant's website totaling $325); Nida Corp. v.
Nida, 118 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1231-32 (M.D.Fla.2000) (involving approximately
$27,417 in revenue from sales in Florida). This case is distinguishable from
internet defamation cases involving passive websites not designed to market
products in the purported forum state. See Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th
Cir.2002); Hy Cite Corp. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., 297 F.Supp.2d 1154
(W.D.Wis.2004).
Id. at 982 So.2d at 742-743 (Emphases added). The instant case does not primarily involve
posting on the internet. But the precedents that have developed about the internet make clear that
nationwide radio and television interviews similarly qualify for Floridas long-arm jurisdiction
and minimum contacts for constitutional due process, particularly where the goal is to drive sales
18
of physical products in commerce within Florida.

Moreover, Floridas long arm statute 48.193 conferring jurisdiction provides:
6. Causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or
omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury,
either:
***
b. Products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the
defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary
course of commerce, trade, or use.
(Emphasis added). Here, the injury and causes of action arise directly from the statements made
in the physical product, the Book, shipped to Florida.
Defendant Risens involvement is not less than the publisher. While the publisher
physically shipped books into Florida to be placed on Florida bookstore shelves, Risen wrote the
Book to sell it and entered into a contract for the publisher to do exactly that. Risen submitted
his manuscript to Houghton Mifflin for the very purpose of having the books shipped into
Florida for sale off of Florida bookshelves.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida of statements on a website in Tennessee, explaining:
The Florida "long-arm" statute permits the state's courts to exercise jurisdiction
over nonresident defendants who commit certain specific acts. Fla. Stat. 48.193.
For example, (1)(b) of the statute permits a Florida court to assert jurisdiction
over any person who "commit[s] a tortious act within this state." Fla. Stat.
48.193(1)(b).
Carman claims that jurisdiction over then nonresident Lovelady is appropriate
under this section of the Florida statute. Carman argues that Lovelady's creation in
Tennessee of a website containing an allegedly infringing and deceptive use of
Carman's trademark is a tortious act "within this state" as contemplated by the
statute because the injury from trademark infringement occurs where the holder of
the mark residesin this case, Florida. He relies upon Nida Corp. v. Nida, 118
F.Supp.2d 1223, 1231 (M.D.Fla.2000) (allegation of trademark infringement of
Florida resident sufficient to trigger Florida long-arm statute). Accord JB Oxford
Holdings, Inc. v. Net Trade, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1368 (S.D.Fla.1999). * * *
*
19
We have held that 48.193(b) of the Florida long-arm statute permits jurisdiction
over the nonresident defendant who commits a tort outside of the state that causes
injury inside the state. Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1216 (11th Cir.
1999) (adopting broad interpretation of long-arm statute by Florida courts that
permits personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant alleged to have
committed a tort causing injury in Florida). Therefore, although the website was
created in Tennessee, the Florida long-arm statute is satisfied if the alleged
trademark infringement on the website caused injury in Florida.
Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d at 1283.
The Supreme Court of Florida recently addressed whether Floridas long arm statute
reaches nationwide defamation outside of Florida in 2010 in Internet Solutions Corp. v.
Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201, 2010 WL 2400390 (Fla. 2010) when the question was certified by the
Eleventh Circuit to Floridas Supreme Court:
Because the case involved a question of Florida law for which there is no clear
controlling precedent, the Eleventh Circuit certified the question that is before this
Court. The Eleventh Circuit did not address the second step of the jurisdictional
inquiry, which is whether the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.
Id. 39 So. 3d at 1215.
First, in the opinion of Floridas Supreme Court this is an area for which there is no
clear controlling precedent. Therefore, the certainty urged by Defendants is misplaced. The
Florida Supreme Court rephrased the certified question as:
Accordingly, we rephrase the certified question as follows:
Does a nonresident commit a tortious act within Florida for purposes of section
48.193(1)(b) when he or she makes allegedly defamatory statements about a
company with its principal place of business in Florida by posting those
statements on a website, where the website posts containing the statements are
accessible and accessed in Florida?
We answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative. We conclude that
posting defamatory material on a website alone does not constitute the
commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of section 48.193(1)(b),
Florida Statutes. Rather, the material posted on the website about a Florida
resident must not only be accessible in Florida, but also be accessed in Florida in
20
order to constitute the commission of the tortious act of defamation within Florida
under section 48.193(1)(b).
Id. 39 So. 3d at 1203. (Capitalization and emphases in original).
The Florida Supreme Court concluded:
For the reasons explained above, we answer the rephrased certified question in the
affirmative. A nonresident defendant commits the tortious act of defamation in
Florida for purposes of Florida's long-arm statute when the nonresident makes
allegedly defamatory statements about a Florida resident by posting those
statements on a website, provided that the website posts containing the statements
are accessible in Florida and accessed in Florida. Having answered this question,
we return this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Id. 39 So. 3d at 1216, 2010 WL 2400390 at 5.
D) Florida Contacts Sufficient for Personal Jurisdiction
In terms of constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the
publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company maintains a general office in Orlando,
Florida, has registered to do business with the Florida Department of State Division of
Corporations and sells physical products, including the Book at issue here, within Florida.
Exhibit A 58; Amended Complaint 18. Plaintiff initially sued the parent company to insure
against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt being only a doing business name of the parent company,
after noticing inconsistent references.
In addition, Defendant James Risen knew and intended that his publisher Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt physically distribute his book, including through the publishers Orlando,
Florida, offices in Florida. Defendant Risen is earning royalties from the Book physically sold in
Florida. Amended Complaint 30, 31.
Plaintiff disputes Defendants view of the governing law and precedents on personal
jurisdiction. For example, Defendants read Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482,
79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), as requiring that Defendants actions must be calculated to cause
21
injury inside Florida. But then their own discussion of the case shows otherwise. Calculated
to implies a knowing intention to cause injury inside Florida. The actual rule of Calder v. Jones
is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that harm would result in Florida. That is, would a
person committing a tort reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
That is, to satisfy constitutional minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, Defendants
need not have intended that harm result in Florida, but merely acted intentionally with a
reasonably-forseeable result of causing defamatory injury within Florida. Id.
The Eleventh Circuit also upheld constitutional minimum contacts for a website in
Tennessee causing injury in Florida:
This "fair warning" requirement is satisfied if the defendant has "purposefully
directed" his activities at residents of the forum, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,
465 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), and the litigation
results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or relate to" those activities.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct.
1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). In this way, the defendant could have reasonably
anticipated being sued in the forum's courts in connection with his activities there.
Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting International Shoe, 326
U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154).
Even where a defendant has purposefully established constitutionally significant
contacts within the forum state, jurisdiction must also be evaluated in light of
several other factors to determine whether its exercise would comport with "fair
play and substantial justice." International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320, 66 S.Ct. 154.
These factors include the burden on the defendant of litigating in the forum, the
forum's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining
convenient and effective relief and the judicial system's interest in resolving the
dispute. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct.
559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Where these factors do not militate against otherwise
permitted jurisdiction, the Constitution is not offended by its exercise. Id.
Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d at 1284. However, an intentional tort is analyzed differently.
It is also significant that the Amended Complaint alleges intentional, not negligent, tortuous acts,
Amended Complaint 42, 78, 97, 241, 242, 249, as does Plaintiff Montgomerys Declaration II
attached as Exhibit A throughout.
22
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the defendant's connection with
the forum in an intentional tort case should be evaluated under the Calder
"effects" test, rather than the contracts-oriented "minimum contacts" test. Ziegler
v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1995). In Ziegler, the court
noted that:
We apply different purposeful availment tests to contract and tort cases....
Consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Burger King, merely contracting
with a resident of the forum state is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over
a nonresident. In tort case, however, jurisdiction may attach if an out-of-forum
defendant merely engages in conduct aimed at, and having effect in, the situs
state.
Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d at 1286. Explaining further:
Recently the Middle District of Florida recognized that "a number of courts" have
held that "where a defendant's tortuous conduct is intentionally and purposefully
directed at a resident of the forum, the minimum contacts requirement is met, and
the defendant should anticipate being haled into court in that forum." New Lenox
Industries v. Fenton, 510 F.Supp.2d 893, 904 (M.D.Fla.2007). In that case, the
plaintiff had alleged fraud and misappropriation of trade secrets, and the district
court held that jurisdiction was proper inasmuch as "Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants committed one or more intentional torts ... against Plaintiff who was
injured in Florida." Id. at 904-05 (citing Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So.2d 920, 922
(Fla.1979) (Florida Supreme Court similarly applied the effects test to find
jurisdiction over the defendant alleged to have committed an intentional tort)).
Id. 544 F.3d at 1287. Explaining further:
Intentional torts are such acts, and may support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant who has no other contacts with the
forum. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804
(1984).
Id., 544 F.3d at 1285-86.
E) Injury to Plaintiff Involves Future Work Opportunities, Not Just the Present
and Past
Since the outrageous defamation has been published, Plaintiff has not been able to get
work, contracts, or business opportunities. See Exhibit A 24. But Defendants err in directing
their attention only toward past events. The harm to Plaintiff involves his loss of current and
future employment, contract, and business opportunities. The relevant test is not where Plaintiff
23
has earned income in the past, as Defendants misleadingly proffer, but whether the defamation
prevents him from earning income now and in the future. See also Amended Complaint 245.
Based on past experience, contracts and work, Plaintiffs greatest future opportunities are
at either Macdill Air Base near Tampa, Florida and Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton
Beach, Florida, the names of counterintelligence and counterintelligence operations. Exhibit A
65; Amended Complaint 4, 21, 101, 246, 248.
Also the defamation of Plaintiff does not critique the U.S. Government in the District of
Columbia, but excuses the U.S. Government as Montgomerys innocent, unsuspecting and
gullible victims. Therefore, the suggestion is untrue that the focus of the defamation is the U.S.
Government located in Washington, D.C.
F) The Laws of Florida Must Apply to This Case
Defendants disingenuously attempt to apply the laws of the District of Columbia,
Washington, California, or Nevada instead of the laws of the state of Florida, where Plaintiff is a
citizen. However, this is simply a strategic move intended to delay and/or improperly have this
case transferred and should not be considered as Floridas choice of law standards clearly
indicate that Florida law should apply.
In deciding choice of law, the state of Florida utilizes the significant relationship test. See
Bishop v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980) ([W]e now adopt the
significant relationships test as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws
145-146 (1971).); Bates v. Cook, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1112, 1114-15 (Fla. 1987) (We are now
convinced that just as in the case of other issues of substantive law, the significant relationships
test should be used to decide conflicts of law questions concerning the statute of limitations.).
"The significant relationships test of the Second Restatement, adopted in Bishop v. Florida
Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980) and adhered to in State Farm Mutual Automobile
24
Insurance Co. v. Olsen, 406 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1981), is clearly the approved approach to conflict
of laws issues in Florida. See Harris v. Berkowitz, 433 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)."
Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi, 435 So.2d 290, 294-295 (Fla. App. 3 Dist., 1983).
The Restatement (Second) promulgated guidelines to aid in the selection of the proper
law through analysis of significant contacts. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws,
6 and 145 (1971) and these guidelines are the ones utilized by Florida courts. Proprietors Ins.
Co. v. Valsecchi, 435 So.2d 290, 294-295 (Fla. App. 3 Dist., 1983) ("Evaluation under
the significant relationships test involves a two-pronged inquiry directed toward review of the
factors listed in section 145 and in section 6.).
Pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, 145 (2):
Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of 6 to determine
the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b)
the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) The domicile,
residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties,
and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance
with respect to the particular issue.
Courts applying this two-pronged test locate the state with the most significant contacts
in relation to the occurrence and to the parties with due regard for the policies underlying each of
the competing state's pertinent laws. See Leflar, The Torts Provisions of the Restatement
(Second), 72 Colum.L.Rev. 267, 268-74 (1972). All of the factors are weighed in determining
which state has the significant relationship that results in that states laws being applied.
Further, as the Eleventh Circuit has held, [i]t is presumed that the law of the place of
injury governs substantive issues until another state is shown to have a more compelling
interest. Judge v. American Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 1565, 1579 (11th Cir. 1990) citing Peoples
Bank and Trust Co. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 598 F. Supp. 377, 379 (S.D.Fla.1984); see also
Emmart v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 659 F. Supp. 843-44 (S.D.Fla. 1987).
25
There is no state that can make a persuasive claim to be the state with more significant
contacts than Florida. The causes of action and the injuries were caused to Plaintiff by
Defendants defamation and other tortious conduct in this district, and in Florida in general.
Amended Complaint 3.
Florida is the state where the vast majority of Plaintiffs injury occurred. Most of
Plaintiffs work has been and would now be, but for the defamation, with components of the U.S.
Government stationed at MacDill Air Force Base and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Exhibit A
63, 72, 73. Amended Complaint 2, 16, 17, 21. Contracting offices and officials are in
Florida, not the District of Columbia nor any other state, and the opportunities for Plaintiff for
employment, business, and/or an income are at either Macdill Air Base near Tampa, Florida and
Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton Beach, Florida, which is at the center of U.S.
Government intelligence and counterterrorism operations. Id.
Moreover, in 2011, Dennis Montgomery incorporated a business with a partner in Florida
to contract with the military and U.S. Government at bases in Florida to continue the same type
of services and software and technological work that he had performed under eTreppid and
BLXWARE. Exhibit A 67; Amended Complaint 23. This business was named Alex James
LLC, which Dennis Montgomery incorporated through the Legal Zoom service company Id.
Further, much of the conflicts and efforts which are colloquially referred to as the war on
terror since September 11, 2001, have been run out of the state of Florida. Amended Complaint
6. Most of the war in Afghanistan was run electronically from the U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM).2 Amended Complaint
6,9,18. And, the Department of Defense, and CIA are located in Virginia. The NSA is located in
2
CENTCOM of the U.S. military is located at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa,
Florida. The U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is located at 7701 Tampa Point
Boulevard, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida 33621.
26
Maryland. No entity at issue is located in the District of Columbia!

Finally, potential witnesses in this case, with whom Dennis Montgomery worked with
these projects, are largely in Florida.
Defendants falsely state that this case has some sort of contacts with the District of
Columbia and they therefore claim that the laws of the District of Columbia should apply under
Floridas choice of law rules looking to the most significant contacts, citing A federal district
court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the forum state. Castellanos v. Pfizer,
Inc., 2008 WL 2323876, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2008).
First, there is nothing in the record and no basis to speculate that the District of Columbia
has anything to do with this Book. Although Defendant James Risen, the author, is also
employed at a news bureau in the District of Columbia, it was not actually part of his job for The
New York Times to write the book. Therefore, the presence of The New York Times news
bureau in the District of Columbia is not relevant to the Book. Defendant Risen likely wrote the
Book in Maryland at his home, since to do otherwise on the time of The New York Times would
be improper and unethical.
Second, Defendants further assert that the harm from the Books defamation of Plaintiff
would impact Plaintiff primarily at U.S. Government contracting offices and officers within the
District of Columbia. However, this assumes that contracting decisions are centralized on a
national level. That assumption is not supported by the movants, nor is it true. Contracting
decisions affecting Plaintiff were regional at various bases including in Florida, not in the
Washington, D.C. area. But even if contracting decisions were centralized, none of those
contracting offices are actually in the District of Columbia. As stated above, the CIA is in
Langley, Virginia, the NSA is in Fort Meade, Maryland, and the Pentagon is in Arlington,
Virginia. Even the Office of the Director of National Intelligence publishes a Virginia phone
27
number as its switchboard (while not disclosing a physical address). Exhibit A 79.
Therefore, there is simply nothing in the record to support the suggestion that under
Floridas choice of law provisions the laws of the District of Columbia would even be among the
candidates for the law to apply to the case. In a telling admission, Defendants have today
withdrawn their Anti-SLAPP motion, effectively conceding that the laws of the District of
Columbia, Washington State, Nevada, and California are not applicable to this case.
Aside from the District of Columbia, Defendants were disingenuously eager to apply the
laws of Washington, California, or Nevada for one simple reason: these are the few states in
which the Anti-SLAPP laws were or are still applicable in federal court, as they have been struck
down or discredited in the vast majority of jurisdictions. There is simply no support for the
notion that any of these states have significant relationships with this case.
With respect to Washington, Defendants only argue that Washingtons law should apply
because Plaintiff formerly resided within that state. See Withdrawn Renewed Special Motion at
p. 3. This does not establish a significant relationship between this case and Washington. As
Defendants themselves point out, nothing related to the relationship between the parties, nor the
writing of the defamatory publication, nor the location of the events discussed in Defendants
defamatory publication, took place in Washington. Plaintiff did reside in Washington, however,
he had formed a business in Florida in 2011 and was injured at the time of the publication of
Defendants defamatory publication. There is thus no significant relationship between this
lawsuit and the state of Washington.
Nevada and California similarly do not have a significant relationship to this case.
Defendants claim Nevada law would be applicable because [e]vents discussed in the Chapter
occurred in Nevada (Book at 41-42), [and] California (id. at 52). See Withdrawn Renewed
Special Motion at p. 3. However, this too is not a significant relationship. Quite simply, it was
28
not the events that occurred in Nevada and California that gave rise to this lawsuit; rather it was
Defendants defamatory statements about these events that led to this lawsuit and Plaintiffs
injury in Florida. In fact, the relationship between these two states and this lawsuit is so
miniscule that this one sentence by Defendants is the only mention of Nevada and California in
the entire Withdrawn Renewed Special Motion. Thus, Nevada and California law clearly should
not apply as well.
IV.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A 12(b)(6) MOTION

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defense of failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted may be raised by motion in response to a
pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a
court must take all well pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S. Ct. 1843, 1849, 23 L.
Ed. 2d 404 (1969). The court must only consider those facts alleged in the complaint is
considering such a motion. See ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994). A
complaint should be dismissed if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts
that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69,
73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1984). We are required to accept the facts as set forth
in the plaintiff's complaint as true, and our consideration is limited to those facts contained in the
pleadings and attached exhibits. Thaeter v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 449 F.3d 1342,
1352 (11th Cir. 2006) )(quoting Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1199 (11th Cir.
2007).
As a result, the allegations of the Amended Complaint are to be taken to be true for
present purposes, in addition to adopting reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff while
rejecting inferences that might otherwise be drawn against the Plaintiffs claim. Plaintiffs
29
Declarations I and II also support the allegations of the Amended Complaint. Exhibit A.
V.
PLAINTIFF STATED A VALID CLAIM

Defendants assert four grounds for arguing that the Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) That under the Fair Report Privilege Defendants
have merely reported the statements of others, (2) That the publication of opinions and/or
hyperbole are not actionable under defamation law, (3) That Plaintiff is a limited public figure
because years earlier he made public statements about an entirely unrelated issue, (4) That
Plaintiff has not alleged actual malice by Defendants because previous stories were
unchallenged. (5) That other torts cannot proceed if defamation does not.
A) Defendants Reliance on External Evidence Exceeds Rule 12(b)(6)
Initially, FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim rests upon the
Complaint alone, and any exhibits, which are so integrally part of the allegations of the
Complaint as to be considered part of it, such as a contract, sued upon.
Here, Defendants motion relies extensively on external documents. Defendants argue
that the Court may consider those exhibits by taking judicial notice of court filings and court
proceedings and the like. However, these documents are not even relevant, as Defendants
concede at page ix of the Book that the representations at issue concerning Plaintiff came from
confidential U.S. Government sources and are not a regurgitation of Playboy magazine or other
articles and documents. Indeed, this so-called new information is the selling point of the Book.
And, by cleverly relying on these confidential sources, Defendants try to immunize themselves
from liability for their defamatory false and misleading statements, as they think that no one can
challenge this illegal attack on Plaintiff designed to create a sensational albeit defamatory story
to sell their Book. Exhibit A 8. In any event, the external documents, particularly when
juxtaposed with the untruthful statements setting forth the defamation at issue in the Amended
30
Complaint and Plaintiffs Declarations, are clearly issues of fact for the jury to decide. It would
be premature to even consider taking these factual issues away from the jury of Plaintiffs peers.
B) Defendants Statements Are Defamatory and Per Se Defamatory
The elements of a claim for defamation are as follows: "(1) publication; (2) falsity; (3)
actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a
public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) actual
damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory." Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d
1201, 1214 (Fla. 2010) citing Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008).
Here, clearly there was a publication which contained several factual falsities about
Plaintiff Montgomery, as set forth in this brief. For example, on page 32 of his Book, Defendant
Risen publishes, . . . Dennis Montgomery was a man who understood how best to profit from
Americas decade of fear . . . a time to make money . . . lawyers fanned out across the country to
try to block any information about Montgomery and his schemes . . . This is one of many
examples outlined above. Yet, in 2012, Plaintiff Montgomery himself told James Risen (via a
back and forth email chain between the two) Why have you [Risen] not chased the money, and
contacted Warren Trepp who kept all of the money. I dont get that? Further, on November 1,
2012, Plaintiff Montgomery wrote to Defendant Risen, His [Warren Trepp] role? He is the CEO
of eTreppid. He got all of the money. Why was he not in your story? (emphasis added). Then
again, on November 14, 2012, Plaintiff Montgomery writes to Defendant Risen, What is it you
really want from DM [Dennis Montgomery]? You dont bother to pressure the people that got
the money, Trepp. You dont bother the people that were there from the CIA, NSA, DIA, Big
Safari, Fort Washington, Air Force, etc. You dont bother Tenet, Brennan, Clapper, Salvatori,
Secretary Roche, or any of the other people that were involved in the projects . . . Why DM
[Dennis Montgomery]? (emphasis added). See Initial Disclosure Documents at Exhibit O.
31
Since 2012, Defendant James Risen has been in personal contact with Plaintiff
Montgomery and knew, specifically, that Dennis Montgomery did not benefit financially from
his technologies, yet falsely published it anyway. Exhibit A 16. Plaintiff Montgomery pleaded
with Risen to contact the person who truly benefited from the War on Terror, Warren Trepp.
Risen was fully aware and published anyway, with malice, that Montgomery . . . was a man
who understood how best to profit from Americas decade of fear . . . a time to make money.
Importantly, even Defendant Risen admits that . . . it is very difficult to tell what is
actually true. ArtsBeat: Book Review Podcast: James Risen's 'Pay Any Price', by John
Williams, The New York Times, October 24, 2014,
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/book-review-podcast-james-risens-pay-any-price/,
based upon Louise Richardsons review of Risens book and publishing a podcast interview of
James Risen with Lucy Worsley. Why then viciously defame Dennis Montgomery, who Risen
and the publisher make the pigeon in their defamatory and dishonest shooting gallery to sell
books in Florida and elsewhere by destroying Plaintiff?
Defamation per se, which is described with the other types of defamation in the Amended
Complaint and herein provides: a statement is per se defamatory if it imputes to another (a) a
criminal offense amounting to a felony, or (b) a presently existing venereal or other loathsome
and communicable disease, or (c) conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the
proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession, or office, or (d) the other being a
woman, acts of unchastity. Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla.
1953) citing Restatement, Torts, Section 570.
The significance of the classification of a communication as actionable per se lies in the
fact that its victim need not plead or prove malice (except where a privilege is involved) or
special damage because malice and the occurrence of damage are both presumed from the nature
32
of the defamation. Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So. 2d 774, 777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1973)
cert. denied, 279 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1973); citing Sharp v. Bussey, 137 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1939); see
also Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1953) (proof of
general or special damages is unnecessary where the words are actionable per se). Such a
presumption is not an ordinary presumption of fact, but is a presumption of law and is not,
therefore, dispelled by the production of evidence. Wolfson, 273 So.2d at 777.
Here, Defendants published in Florida and nationwide based on knowingly false and
misleading published facts that Dennis Montgomery is a con-artist, a fraud, a hoax, and
dishonest. Among other defamatory statements, Defendants state that Plaintiff Montgomery
defrauded CIA Director George Tenet and the U.S. Government generally with regard to
contracts with the Government, which published and accused Plaintiff Montgomery of having
committed crimes under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 3733, and also common law
and statutory fraud. Defendants further knowingly falsely published that Dennis Montgomery
lied to the U.S. Government which is a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. This is
defamation per se, as it relates to Plaintiffs trade or profession as it says that Plaintiff committed
a crime.
C) Defendants Statements Are Not Protected By the Fair Report Privilege
With great panache and chutzpah, given that Defendants credit their publication as
having been based on confidential government source information and not previously published
old documents, Defendants assert the Fair Report Privilege. Stated simply, Defendants contend
that they are merely reporting on what other people have already said. However, this is simply
irrelevant and yet another falsehood, not just because they tout and base their Book on new
confidential source information, however much they knew or had reason to know that the
information was false and misleading, but because Defendants made many emphatic statements
33
which are defamatory pronouncements in their own voice, unfiltered by any other speaker or
source.
Yet, "[E]ven where a qualified privilege exists, i.e. "statements of a citizen to a political
authority regarding matters of public concern," that privilege carries with it the "obligation to
employ means that are not improper," Fla. Fern Growers Ass'n v. Concerned Citizens, 616 So.
2d 562, 569 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1993). "[T]he mode, manner or purpose of the
communication would go to the question of abuse or forfeiture of the privilege." Fla. Fern
Growers Ass'n v. Concerned Citizens, 616 So. 2d 562, 569 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1993)
citing Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 803, 809 (Fla. 1984).
Furthermore, and to reemphasize, Defendants publish [m]any people have criticized the
use of anonymous sources. Yet all reported know that the very best stories the most important,
the most sensitive rely on them. This book would not be possible without the cooperation of
many current and former government officials and other individuals who were willing to discuss
sensitive matters only on the condition of anonymity. Thus, it is highly unethical and
misleading for defense counsel to make the Fair Reporting Privilege argument, in light of her
own clients touting of the new confidential source information contained in the Book, which has
never been published before. This is the same Washington, D.C. defense counsel that
misinformed this Court, even after Plaintiffs counsel told counsel to correct it, that Plaintiff is
not a registered voter in Florida. Amended Complaint 13.
Even if the Fair Reporting Privilege applied, which it does not, the Fair Report Privilege
also does not immunize Defendants because they did not engage in fair reporting. Even a review
of the numerous exhibits attached to Defendants motion raises (1) many red warning flags and
(2) overwhelming contrary evidence to the dishonest, lopsided spin published by Defendants.
34
Just the motion exhibits alone reveal that Defendants published statements do not fairly present
the record that Defendants claim to be reporting from.
Finally, Defendants attempt to claim a Fair Report Privilege premised at one point on
their assertion that previous reports about Dennis Montgomery went unchallenged. But that is
false. Dennis Montgomery repeatedly, persistently, and overwhelmingly challenged all of
these reports to all publications and authors involved, including directly to James Risen. Exhibit
A 47. Instead, Defendant Risen attempted to blackmail Plaintiff by demanding that he provide
classified documents and information to him or else he would publish the false and misleading
statements that he later did publish in the Book. That is, when Plaintiff warned him that the
reports were false and misleading, Defendant Risen responded to him by telling him that he
would not publish those false statements if instead he provided him with classified information
and documents. Exhibit A 108. Moreover, Defendants make defamatory statements and not
opinion.3
D)
Defendants Statements Amount to Defamation by Implication
Defendants argue that the case must be dismissed with regard to statements that are
either opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. An opinion is not actionable only if it cannot be
objectively verified as false or cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about the
plaintiff. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 18-20. However, a statement of opinion is actionable if it has
an explicit or implicit factual foundation and is, therefore, objectively verifiable, which is the
case herein. Guilford Transp. Industries, Inc. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580, 596 (2000); see also
Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (statements of opinion
actionable if they imply a provable false fact, or rely upon stated facts that are provably false).
Here, Appellees statements can objectively be verified as false, both in its explicit as well as
implicit reliance in a factual foundation. Moreover, mixed statements of opinion and fact are
actionable. Harper, James and Bray, 2 The Law of Torts 2d, 5.8 at 66-68; Restatement of Torts
2d 566 (1977). This is also true in New York, where the statements were made. Steinhilber v.
Alphonse, 501 N.E.2d 550, 551 (N.Y. 1986).
Defendants made many different types of statements in great quantity. There are only a
few statements that might qualify as opinion or hyperbole. But those are not the statements that
Plaintiff is suing upon. There are an abundance of defamatory factually-based statements made
by Defendants which are actionable and are neither opinion nor hyperbole.
35
"Defamation by implication arises, not from what is stated, but from what is implied
when a defendant (1) juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between
them, or (2) creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts . . . ." Jews for Jesus, Inc. v.
Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008). Defendants committed both forms of defamation by
implication. For example, Defendants accuse Plaintiff of being motivated by greed. In fact, greed
is one of the themes and in the title of the Book. Defendants publish that Plaintiff defrauded the
Government to make money out of greed. Amended Complaint 44, 47. Yet Defendants omit
facts and thereby create a defamatory statement. Defendants knew that Warren Trepp received
nearly all of the money from the government contracts while Plaintiff Montgomery did not
receive any distribution of company profits and was paid a relatively small salary. Amended
Complaint 47; Exhibit A 7. Defendants also omit that the company eTreppid gave up private
sector opportunities of equal financial value. Those omissions create the defamatory implication
that Plaintiff defrauded the U.S. Government a crime for greed. Since Plaintiff did not
receive any profits from eTreppid, he would not benefit from defrauding the federal government.
Furthermore, eTreppid was not paid for results but for computer and technical analysis of videos
supplied to it.4
As defamation by implication, Defendants further state [contractors] make no money if
they determine that the threat is overblown or, God forbid, if the war on terror ever comes to an
end. Amended Complaint 191,192. However, eTreppid was paid for analyzing videos that
the C.I.A. wanted to have analyzed, not contingent upon results. Exhibit A 17. The Plaintiffs
4
Defendants also make the false claim that Plaintiffs software does not work, and that he
defrauded the federal government, a crime. Defendants intentionally omit the fact that the
Government has continued to use Plaintiff Montgomerys software and technology. Amended
Complaint 49. By omitting this fact, the reader is led to believe that Plaintiffs software was
indeed a hoax, and not an integral part of the governments software capabilities. Amended
Complaint 207-208; Exhibit A 12-13.
36
employer was paid for doing the software and technological work requested, not for finding
terrorists necessarily. These are just a few examples of defamation by implication committed by
Defendants. Id.
E) Defamation Is For the Jury to Decide
When a plaintiff requests a jury trial, it is not for the district court to decide whether a
statement is defamatory or not. It is only when the court can say that the publication is not
reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in any
defamatory sense that it can rule as a matter of law, that it was not libelous. Levy v. American
Mut. Ins. Co., 196 A.2d 475, 476 (D.C. 1964) (Emphasis added); Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc.,
235 F.3d 617, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2001). [I]f the language is capable of two meanings, one
actionable and the other not, it is for the jury to determine which of the two meanings
would be attributed to it by persons of ordinary understanding under the circumstances.
Levy, 196 A.2d at 476 (Emphasis added). [A] jury must determine whether these impressions
were actually conveyed, whether they were false, and whether the letters were motivated by
actual malice. White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 525 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also
Dunn v. Gannett New York Newspapers, Inc., 833 F.2d 446, 449 (3d Cir. 1987) (if the language
at issue is capable of both a defamatory and a nondefamatory meaning, there exists a question of
fact for the jury.).
Whether there was a showing of constitutional malice is also a matter for the jury to
decide. See Sco Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 439 Fed. Appx. 688, 695 (10th Cir. Utah 2011) (the
jury was instructed to consider slanderous only those statements uttered with constitutional
malice). Recognizing the role of the jury in determining constitutional malice, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held:
We must attempt to discharge our constitutional responsibility to protect First
37
Amendment values without unduly trenching on the fact-finding role of the jury
and trial judge. We are mindful that in New York Times, Bose, and Harte-Hanks,
the Supreme Court was fashioning a process for reviewing the evidence which
permits judicial protection of First Amendment values while still paying due
deference to the fact-finding role of juries, and particularly the jury's opportunity
to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., 930 F.2d 662, 672 (9th Cir. 1990). Indeed, the jurys
observation of Plaintiff and especially Defendants credibility is precisely what is needed here.
Defendants falsely claim that they did not knowingly post false and defamatory information
about Plaintiff. It is up to the jury to determine whether these Defendants are credible. See also,
St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732, supra (The finder of fact must determine whether the publication
was indeed made in good faith.).
F) Actual Malice Is Not Necessary As Plaintiff Is Not a Public Figure But Actual
Malice Exists and Has Been Shown In Any Event
Dennis Montgomery is not a public figure. He is not even a limited public figure as
discussed below. Plaintiff Montgomery is a private citizen who worked with government
agencies at their request and has continued to seek and has sought a private, nonpublic life with
his wife and children. Therefore, evidence of actual malice, as Defendants disingenuously put
forth, is not required even under the strictest standards of Florida defamation law. However,
actual malice has been pled in any event, as is evidenced in the Amended Complaint and
Plaintiff Montgomerys incorporated Declarations for the purposes of punitive damages to deter
this kind of intentional and malicious behavior from repeating itself against an innocent victim.
First, in proving constitutional malice, a plaintiff may use evidence of all of Defendants
acts in in order to establish that constitutional malice existed. Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 414 F.2d
324, 342 (2d Cir. 1969) (the court properly instructed the jurors that they should consider all the
evidence concerning appellants' acts and conduct in publishing fact in deliberating upon whether
Defendants published with actual malice); Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491
38
U.S. 657, 668 (1989). In Harte-Hanks, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is clear that the
conclusion concerning the newspaper's departure from accepted standards and the evidence of
motive were merely supportive of the court's ultimate conclusion that the record "demonstrated a
reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of [defendant]'s allegations and thus provided clear
and convincing proof of 'actual malice' as found by the jury. A plaintiff is entitled to prove the
defendant's state of mind through circumstantial evidence and it cannot be said that evidence
concerning motive or care never bears any relation to the actual malice inquiry. HarteHanks, 491 U.S. at 668 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Second, relying on circumstantial evidence to prove constitutional malice has become the
proper method. See e.g., Khawar v. Globe Int'l, Inc., 965 P.2d 696, 709 (Cal. 1998) ("To prove
this culpable mental state, the plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence, including evidence
of motive and failure to adhere to professional standards."), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1114 (1999);
Sprague v. Walter, 656 A.2d 890, 907 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) ("Any competent evidence can be
used to establish actual malice."), Appeal denied, 670 A.2d 142 (Pa. 1996).
State and federal courts have undoubtedly recognized that:
it would . . . be rare for a defendant . . . to admit to having had serious,
unresolved doubts . . . Requiring proof of recklessness without being able to
adduce proof of the underlying facts from which a jury could infer recklessness
. . . would limit successful suits to those cases in which there is direct proof by a
partys admission of the ultimate fact.
Eastwood v. Nat'l Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) ("As we
have yet to see a defendant who admits to entertaining serious subjective doubt about the
authenticity of an article it published, we must be guided by circumstantial evidence. By
examining the editors' actions we try to understand their motives."); Liberty Lobby, Inc. v.
Anderson, 746 F.2d 1563, 1569 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The plaintiff need not obtain any admission of
fault from the defendant."), vacated on other grounds, 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Goldwater, 414 F.2d
39
at 343. If this were not the law, "mere swearing could, as a matter of law, defeat any action to
which the New York Times principles are applicable." Guam Fed'n of Teachers v. Israel, 492
F.2d 438, 439 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 872 (1974).
Third, . . . most authorities suggest that a failure to retract, in conjunction with other
circumstances, may be used to establish the requisite level of [constitutional] malice." John C.
Martin, Comment, The Role of Retraction in Defamation Suits, 1993 U. Chi. Legal F. 293, 295
(1993); accord, e.g., Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762, 794, 260 U.S. App. D.C. 39 (D.C. Cir.
1987) (en banc) (refusal to retract can be evidence of actual malice); Golden Bear Distrib. Sys. of
Tex., Inc. v. Chase Revel, Inc., 708 F.2d 944, 950 (5th Cir 1983), abrogated on other grounds
by Hiller v. Mfrs. Prod. Research Grp. of N. Am., Inc., 59 F.3d 1514, 1520-21 (5th Cir.
1995); Restatement (Second) of Torts 580A, cmt. d (1977) ("Under certain circumstances
evidence [of a refusal to retract a statement after it has been demonstrated to be false] . . .
might be relevant in showing recklessness at the time the statement was published.") (emphasis
added).
By no stretch of the imagination did Plaintiff Montgomery make[] conclusory assertions
of the elements of actual malice as Defendants attempt to put forth in their Motion to Dismiss.
Indeed, actual malice, even if Plaintiff Montgomery were a public figure or limited public figure
which he is not is pled more than sufficiently throughout the Amended Complaint and it is
set forth at paragraphs 10 to 12 of Declaration II. In the Amended Complaints paragraphs 68
through 95, Plaintiff extensively pleads and sets forth actual malice by Defendants, including
that Defendant Risen was warned, according to his own admission and confession, that The New
York Times and other journalistic outlets would not publish many of these claims, ignored many
warning signs that his claims about Montgomery were obviously false and/or preposterous,
40
ignored contradictory information available, and ignored the Plaintiffs warnings in many
communications that the statements were false.
For example in the Amended Complaints paragraph 69, it states Defendant Risen
ignores evidence that should have warned him and the other Defendants that their false and
misleading publications are wrong into yet another example that Plaintiff Montgomery kept
defrauding the Government. Moreover, the Book has a political agenda to attack. In the
Amended Complaints paragraph 65, the Complaint states, The Book is an intentional,
politically-driven, falsified, and misleading attack on U.S. foreign, military, and intelligence
policies in the war on terror against Islamic terrorism, meant to mock and ridicule a strong
national defense.
Of even greater importance, Plaintiffs Declarations sets forth with great specificity the
actual malice, both in terms of direct and circumstantial evidence. Exhibit A. Declaration I is
incorporated as Exhibit C into the Amended Complaint.
G) Plaintiff Is Not A Public Figure or Limited Public Figure
Because Plaintiff is neither a public figure nor a limited public figure, he may prevail at
trial without pleading or proving that Defendants acted with actual malice while defaming him.
In contrast, a public figure or limited purpose public figure to pass constitutional requirements
under the First Amendment as taught by New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) may
prevail at trial only by proving actual malice by the defaming speaker.
In Florida, our supreme court has adopted negligence as the applicable standard
for recovery of actual damages in a case which involved a private figure and a
public issue. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984).
Although language in Ane appears to interpret Gertz as eliminating the issue of
public interest or concern from a discussion of the standard, the latest case from
the United States Supreme Court, decided after Ane, interprets Gertz and makes
clear that courts must consider whether the alleged libel concerns a matter of
public or private concern. See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders,
Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985).
41
Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 489 So.2d 72, 75-76, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 943 (Fla.App. 4
Dist., 1986)
Nevertheless, despite having no obligation to do so, Plaintiff has convincingly pled
extensive allegations of facts establishing in multiple ways that Defendants acted with actual
malice in their defamation of Plaintiff Montgomery. See Amended Complaint 87-94.
First, Plaintiff is clearly not a public figure: Absent clear evidence of general fame or
notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society, an individual is
not a public figure for all purposes. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 328, 352. Working on secret programs
under contract to the CIA, Montgomery has not sought or acquired any position of public power
or influence which would give him the ability to protect himself apart from the Courts within the
meaning of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) or its progeny:
The Court articulated two policy reasons for requiring public figures to show
actual malice. First, public figures enjoy greater access to the channels of
effective communication than private individuals, and are therefore better able to
contradict the lie or correct the error. Id. at 344, 94 S.Ct. 2997. Second, the
Court identified a normative consideration, rooted in the observation that public
figures became such by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor
and success with which they seek the public's attention.
Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342. As a result, Plaintiff Montgomery is not a public figure.
However, second, Defendants assert their unsupported conclusion that Plaintiff is a
limited purpose public figure. A limited purpose public figure is treated as a public figure only
limited to certain topics, periods of time, venues, only when he has voluntarily thrust himself into
a particular public controversy, and only with regard to that particular public controversy:
Although Gertz made it clear that the actual malice standard should apply when
the plaintiff is a limited public figure, it provided little guidance for determining
when a person has achieved that status. As the parties agree, the issue involves a
mixed question of law and fact which was properly presented for the trial court's
determination prior to the jury trial. Basically, two factors must be present before
a person may be considered a limited public figure. First, the circumstances in
which a person achieves public figure status must rise to the level of a public
42
controversy and may not be a matter of mere public interest. 8 Second, the person
must have voluntarily thrust himself into the vortex of that controversy. 9
Arnold v. Taco Properties, Inc., 427 So.2d 216 (Fla. App. 1 Dist., 1983) (emphases added).
As the Eleventh Circuit has explained the Court must examine the plaintiffs
involvement in the controversy and determine whether the alleged defamation [was] germane
to the plaintiffs participation in that particular controversy:
In Silvester, we adopted the three-part analysis for establishing limited public
figure status set forth in Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287,
1297 (D.C.Cir.1980). As we stated in Silvester, "[u]nder the Waldbaum analysis,
the court must (1) isolate the public controversy, (2) examine the plaintiffs'
involvement in the controversy, and (3) determine whether 'the alleged
defamation [was] germane to the plaintiffs' participation in the controversy.' "
839 F.2d at 1494, quoting Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297.
Long v. Cooper, 848 F.2d 1202 (11th Cir. (Ala.), 1988) (citing to Silvester v. American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 839 F.2d 1491, 1493 (11th Cir.1988)); Saro Corp. v. Waterman
Broadcasting Corp., 595 So.2d 87 (Fla.App. 2 Dist., 1992). Similarly:
Under Gertz, Trump University must have thrust [itself] to the forefront of this
particular controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved. 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997.
Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir., 2013) (emphasis added); Gertz, 418 U.S.
at 352, 94 S.Ct. 2997.
Here, Dennis Montgomery is not even a limited public figure with regard to the topics
of Defendants defamation of him at issue in the case at bar. Defendants defamation of Plaintiff
Montgomery is not germane to his prior revelations about Congressman and later Governor
Gibbons. Put another way, the topics of Defendants defamation fall outside of the limited
aspect of a limited purpose public figure.
In 2005, Plaintiff quietly filed whistleblower complaints with the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and CIA. Then in 2006 Plaintiff filed a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint
(qui tam action) in court, under seal concerning Gibbons. Eventually the court unsealed that
complaint. When the court unsealed the complaint in the courts file, this resulted in news
43
coverage, which Plaintiff did not seek. Eventually, on the advice of counsel at the time, and the
business owner Edra Blixseth, Plaintiff finally relented to requests for comment and granted (as
he recalls) only one (1) interview with NBC News, which he recalls lasting about 45 seconds to a
minute on the air.
By contrast, here, on Page 9 of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants reference news
coverage arising from Warren Trepps allegations in court filings in litigation. Plaintiff
Montgomery sought to get paid his full share of the income of eTreppid. Trepp responded to
Montgomerys demand for payment by hurling accusations against Montgomery in court. As
conceded on their Page 9, Defendants knew that Trepps accusations trying to avoid paying
Montgomery cannot be trusted as reliable. But Defendants also concede that Trepp in court, not
by the Plaintiff, raised the controversy concerning Montgomerys work.
Next, Defendants point to other defamatory news coverage. However, a private person
cannot be transformed into a limited purpose public figure by defamation. Rety v. Green, 546
So.2d 410, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1829 (Fla. App. 3 Dist., 1989) highlights that a defendant in a
defamation action cannot by his defamation make the plaintiff a limited public figure for First
Amendment purposes. Id.
First, it is clear beyond any doubt that the plaintiff Rety was not a limited public
figure under Gertz prior to the instant controversy, and, consequently, "actual
malice" was not required to be proved as an essential element in the plaintiff's
cause of action. Rety was a private businessman who owned and operated an
exclusive French restaurant in Bay Harbor Islands. He advertised his restaurant as
do many other private businessmen, but he was in no sense a public personality.
In particular, he did not "thrust [himself] to the forefront of [a] particular public
controvers[y] in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz,
418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. at 3009. Indeed, he only became publicly prominent in
the Bay Harbor Island community due to the widespread publication of Green's
defamatory letter, and obviously a defendant in a defamation action cannot by his
defamation make the plaintiff a limited public figure for First Amendment
purposes; the said plaintiff, unlike this case, must be a limited public figure prior
to the alleged defamation. The trial court therefore properly ruled throughout the
case that Rety was "a private individual for purposes of the defamation count."
44
See Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1293 n. 12

(D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 898, 101 S.Ct. 266, 66 L.Ed.2d 128 (1980).
Rety v. Green, 546 So.2d at 424. Similarly:
Nor does Transmission Kingdom fit into the limited public figure test. WBBH
created a public controversy, not Transmission Kingdom. The facts do not support
a conclusion that Transmission Kingdom thrust itself into that controversy as a
central figure and brought attention upon itself. Further, the facts are certainly not
beyond dispute for the purpose of summary judgment; when viewed in the light
most favorable to Transmission Kingdom, the facts show Transmission Kingdom
was dragged into a limelight it least desired.
Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broadcasting Corp., 595 So.2d at 89.
Finally, Defendants contend that Montgomery further became a public figure because he
sought out U.S. government contracts involving national security even after he was subject to
extensive media scrutiny. In fact, however, Plaintiff Montgomery never at any time sought out
any U.S. Government contracts, involving national security or otherwise.
Warren Trepp and Edra Blixseth sought out U.S. Government contracts not Dennis
Montgomery. Exhibit A 88. Defendants persist in curiously skipping over Warren Trepp who
actually dealt with the government in order to bizarrely defame Plaintiff as conning the U.S.
Government. But Plaintiff did not deal with the U.S. Government. Trepp did. Defendants
actual malice and defamation comes sharply into focus upon recognizing that Defendants blame
Dennis Montgomery for greed and for conning the U.S. Government when it wasnt
Montgomery who negotiated or contracted with the government. Defendants cleverly seek to
exonerate Trepp, who was involved with Michael Milken, Ivan Boskeyin the Drexel Burnham
Lambert securities scandal in the 1980s.
Furthermore, eTreppid already had contracts lined up with private sector clients. The
U.S. Government sought out eTreppid and Montgomery, not the other way around. So Plaintiff
45
did not con the government out of greed when the U.S. Government approached eTreppid.
Exhibit A 11-15.
Also, an inapposite case cited by Defendants is CACI Premier Tech., Inc. v. Rhodes, 536
F.3d 280, 295 (4th Cir. 2008). Whereas a contractor taking a position in the middle of Iraq might
have understood and voluntarily assumed the risk of being part of the ongoing news story of the
U.S.-led coalitions liberation of Iraq, by contrast Plaintiff Montgomery was contacted and
persuaded by the CIA and NSA to engage in secret work out of the public eye. Exhibit A 114.
Even so, Plaintiff has pled actual malice. As Defendants concede:
A plaintiff could support a defamation claim with allegations of facts evidencing
that a defendant was subjectively aware when the defendant published that the
story was (1) fabricated; (2) so inherently improbable that only a reckless
person would have put [it] in circulation; or (3) based wholly on an unverified
anonymous telephone call or some other source that [defendant] had obvious
reasons to doubt. Lohrenz v. Donnelly, 350 F.3d 1272, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted).
Motion to Dismiss, Page 34. However, Defendants story is so inherently improbable that only
a [dishonest or at least] reckless person would have put [it] in circulation. Id. Defendants
knowingly and/or recklessly turn a blind eye to:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Sources who will bear the blame in public and Congressional scrutiny themselves
unless they can shift blame to a scapegoat like Montgomery.
The preposterous defamatory statement that a lowly private citizen not the
President of the United States or John Brennan at the CIA is responsible for
President George W. Bushs decisions to ground aircraft.
The U.S. Governments continued hiring of Montgomerys services as obviously
proving the Defendants accounts false, and Montgomerys work valuable, rather
than proving that the U.S. Government is stupid.
The inherently improbable false and misleading statements that the CIA could be
conned by an overweight gambler in its own backyard, within a familiar,
common language and culture, but the CIA can uncover secrets in foreign
countries.
The inherently improbable false and misleading statements that the CIA, NSA,
and DIA would not independently test and confirm the results of Montgomerys
software.
46
vi)
vii)
viii)
The actual behavior of Trepp and Flynn furiously trying to seize control of
Montgomerys software and technology in legal proceedings, demonstrating their
belief that the software was extremely valuable.
The fact that the U.S. Government has never demanded repayment from eTreppid
of one penny of the $30 million it paid for Montgomerys work.
The fact that Warren Trepp has not offered to return any of the $30 million he
took from the U.S. Government for work he has since called worthless.
Exhibit A 11-15.
Evidence of a lack of an effective editorial process is used as objective evidence that
collectively supports a finding of constitutional actual malice.5 See Warford v. Lexington HeraldLeader Co., 789 S.W.2d 758 (Ky. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1047 (1991). In Warford, the
reporters made minimal efforts to verify the credibility of their source. Id. The defendants
transformed the source's ambiguous statement into "the most potentially damaging alternative"
creating a "jury question on whether the publication was indeed made without serious doubt as to
its truthfulness." Id. at 772-73 (quoting Rebozo v. Wash. Post Co., 637 F.2d 375, 382 (5th Cir.
1981)).
In Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 668 (1989), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that it is clear that the conclusion concerning the newspaper's departure
from accepted standards and the evidence of motive were merely supportive of the court's
ultimate conclusion that the record:
"demonstrated a reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of [defendant]'s
allegations and thus provided clear and convincing proof of 'actual malice' as
found by the jury. A plaintiff is entitled to prove the defendant's state of mind
through circumstantial evidence and it cannot be said that evidence concerning
motive or care never bears any relation to the actual malice inquiry. HarteHanks, 491 U.S. at 668.
Khawar v. Globe Int'l, Inc., 965 P.2d 696, 709 (Cal. 1998) (emphasis added). explains that "To
prove this culpable mental state, the plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence, including
5
Pursuant to Florida Statute 770.02, Plaintiff asked Defendants to correct the defamatory
statements and they refused. See Exhibit B to the Amended Complaint.
47
evidence of motive and failure to adhere to professional standards.", cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1114
(1999). As Sprague v. Walter, 656 A.2d 890, 907 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) explains "Any
competent evidence can be used to establish actual malice.", Appeal denied, 670 A.2d 142 (Pa.
1996).
Moreover, the Book has a political agenda to attack. The Amended Complaints
paragraph 77 states The Book is an intentional, politically-driven, falsified, and misleading
attack on U.S. foreign, military, and intelligence policies in the war on terror against Islamic
terrorism, meant to mock and ridicule a strong national defense.
Of even greater importance, Plaintiffs declarations sets forth with great specificity the
actual malice, both in terms of direct and circumstances evidence. Exhibit A and M, throughout.
Actual malice is a term of art, flowing from proof that the defendant made defamatory
statements with knowledge of [their] falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Gertz, 418
U.S. at 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997. Here, any experienced national security reporter would know that the
defamation of Montgomery is false or at a minimum his acts would show a reckless disregard for
the truth.
H) Other Tort Claims Not Barred on the Basis of Defamation
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs other causes of action must also fail because [A]
plaintiff may not use related causes of action to avoid the constitutional requisites of a
defamation claim. Moldea II, 22 F.3d at 319-20 (citing Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S.
663, 670 (1991)).
However, this argument depends upon assuming that constitutional limitations actually
do apply in whole or in part to some or all of Defendants statements. To the extent that
Plaintiffs causes of action are constitutionally valid, the objection will have no application.
The elements of the tort of interference are:
48
(1) the existence of a business relationship under which the plaintiff has legal
rights, (2) an intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by the
defendant, and (3) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the business
relationship.
Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249
So.2d 36 (Fla.1971). As is further pointed out in Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860,
862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
It is not essential, however, that the business relationship be founded upon an
enforceable contract. Franklin v. Brown, 159 So.2d 893 (Fla.1st DCA 1964).
Thus, in Calvary Church, Inc. v. Siegel, 358 So.2d 1134 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), the
court affirmed a judgment against a corporation for interfering with the plaintiff's
agreement to purchase property from another even though the agreement was not
necessarily enforceable against the seller. Moreover, proof of fraud is not required
to sustain a cause of action for this tort. Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335 So.2d
641 (Fla.1st DCA 1976).
Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc., 505 So.2d 1371, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1042 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.,
1987).
As to the tortious interference claim, retailer argues first that it was barred by the
economic loss rule. See HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, 685 So.2d
1238 (Fla.1997). We agree with the second district that in this kind of
circumstance the tort of interference with prospective advantage is sufficiently
independent to withstand the economic loss rule. See Bankers Risk Management
Serv., Inc. v. Av-Med Managed Care, Inc., 697 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Centro Nautico Representacoes Nauticas, LDA. v. International Marine Co op, Ltd., 719 So.2d
967 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1998).
VI.
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Defendants motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and FRCP
12(b)(1). Personal jurisdiction clearly exists in Florida and this district, and venue is proper here.
Moreover, and importantly, Defendants Book which is a dishonest hit-piece on Plaintiff, who
becomes their sensationalized defamatory whipping boy to market and sell books based on
their own admissions, is derived from confidential Government sources, however then distorted
and falsified by Defendant Risen, knowingly and/or recklessly. Thus, Defendants disingenuous
defense of the Fair Reporting Privilege does not and cannot apply in this case.
49
This case has been scheduled to go to the jury at the earliest practicable date, as Plaintiff
is in poor health due to a brain aneurism and may become incapacitated or not survive a long
pre-trial period. This is a relatively simple and straightforward case, as the court also
acknowledged at the status conference of April 14, 2015. Defendants, who have huge financial
and other resources and are being represented by two mega-law firms, simply will make
whatever argument is at their disposal to try to delay adjudication and to avoid their day of
reckoning before a jury.
As such, based on the facts and the law, this honorable Court must respectfully deny
Defendants Motions to Dismiss.
Dated: June 1, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 246220
7050 W Palmetto Park Rd. #15-287
Boca Raton, FL 33433
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
50
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 1, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing
to the following CM/ECF participant(s):
/s/ Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 246220
7050 W Palmetto Park Rd. # 15-287
Boca Raton, FL 33433
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
51
Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 1 of 75
Exhibit A

Plaintiff,
v.
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT
PUBLISHING COMPANY
and
HMH HOLDINGS, INC.

and
JAMES RISEN, an individual, Author
Defendants.
SECOND DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF DENNIS MONTGOMERY IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION CHALLENGING
FLORIDA JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, Dennis Montgomery, hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the following is true and correct:
1) I am over the age of 18 years old and mentally and legally competent to make this
affidavit sworn under oath1, despite having suffered a brain aneurism and serious
related health issues. See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, attached to this affidavit.
2) Reporter James Risen of The New York Times, publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company, and HMH Holdings, Inc., published a book Pay Any Price:
Greed, Power and Endless War in October 2014 (hereinafter the Book). See
1
My prior declaration is attached and incorporated substantially into the Amended

Complaint. The prior declaration should be read in conjunction with this Second Declaration.
Amended Complaint 14-15, 30.

3) In Chapter 2 of the Defendants Book, James Risen, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company, and HMH Holdings, Inc. lie about me and libel and slander me
maliciously and extensively.
4) Chapter 2 involves me, and James Risen focuses almost exclusively on defaming me
alone to sell copies of the Book in marketing interviews. Having read the Book, I
find that I am used by Risen as the centerpiece, that is the Defendants defamatory
punching boy, to sell books. Risen conspicuously and intentionally downplays the
many other events and incidents in the Book and focuses almost exclusively on
defaming me when promoting his Book for sales in Florida and elsewhere. See
Amended Complaint 41-42.
5) Whereas, the Defendants, especially Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company, have great resources and no doubt have errors and omissions insurance
to finance their legal defense, I have no money or resources at all. I lost my house in
foreclosure. The Defendants will be more than able to afford to litigate the claim in
Florida, particularly since two mega-law firms represent them.
6) My finances, employment, career and business opportunities have been severely
devastated and destroyed by the knowingly, and at a minimum recklessly, false and
misleading statements made by the Defendants, contributing to the loss of my
previous house in foreclosure and driving me into poverty just at the time I have also
been diagnosed with serious medical problems.
7) The Defendants knowingly and at a minimum recklessly published defamatory and
false and misleading statements which are not opinion or hyperbole and are not fair
reporting of their sources or public records. The Defendants have not engaged in fair
reporting, but published extremely lopsided and unbalanced, falsified and defamatory
statements in which they knowingly and/or recklessly distorted and falsified the
information available to them. Importantly. the defamation is specifically false and
misleading in factually verifiable terms, including in that:
8) Defendants published defamatory material and statements from alleged confidential
U.S. Government sources in the intelligence and military communities. The false and
misleading statements obviously did not result from fair reporting of previously
published material, as they falsely and conveniently claim in their motions to dismiss
and related pleadings. They admit that on page ix of the Book by stating: Many
people have criticized the use of anonymous sources. Yet all reporters know that
the very best stories the most important, the most sensitive rely on them. This
book would not be possible without the cooperation of many current and former
government officials and other individuals who were willing to discuss sensitive
matters only on the condition of anonymity. See Amended Complaint 59-64.
Already, counsel for Defendants have misled this Court and stated on the record that I
am not a registered voter in Florida. Incredibly, this false statement was made under
oath by defense counsel Laura Handman of a large District of Columbia national law
firm that had the resources to check this out with Miami-Dade County Elections
Miami-Dade Portal.
Therefore, Risens Book is not a fair report of prior reports or public information.
Indeed, quite the contrary. It is a big selling point of Defendants Book that it
publishes new information that had never been accessible or published before,
specifically revealing inside information, however falsified, from U.S. Government

sources. That appeal of revealing inside information previously unknown from U.S.
Government sources is exactly why the Book is a bestseller in Florida and elsewhere,
particularly given that Florida is at the center of U.S. counterterrorism military and
intelligence operations, as I testify to below.
9) Defendants are simply flat-out lying concerning what many of their sources in the
U.S. Government tell them. As presented in my affidavit to then U.S. District Judge
Brian Sandoval (now Governor of Nevada) on October 30, 2006, attached as Exhibit
4, especially on pages 11 to 15, the U.S. Government always independently tested
and verified my results, including that my software and technology frequently
predicted ahead-of-time terrorist attacks that did in fact later occur at the place and on
the date my data predicted. For example, as I stated in October 2006 in the affidavit
on pages 14-15, In early 2005, the Air Force contracted with an independent
consulting contractor who verified that there was, in fact, embedded patterns inside
the Al Jazeera signals, but that the consultant was unable to decode the encryptions.
Exhibit 4. The U.S. Government independently tested and confirmed my work. Realworld events accurately predicted by my software and technology ahead of time
confirmed my work. Therefore, based on all of my personal interaction with U.S.
Government officials and personnel who have any knowledge of my work, Defendant
Risen is knowingly and intentionally lying about, twisting, and distorting what his
claimed sources say about me and my work. See Amended Complaint 48-49.
10) The substance of the Defendants defamation is to blame me as a private citizen for
the actions and failures of U.S. Government officials. Defendants could not
reasonably trust any sources of negative information about me from sources that
Defendants know are shifting the blame for their own actions to me as a scapegoat.
See Amended Complaint 50-51; 80-81.
11) Defendants defamed me with knowledge of their false statements or at a minimum a
reckless disregard to the truth and biased reporting because the Defendants actually
know that Warren Trepp has never been required to pay back any of the $30 million
that eTreppid received from the U.S. Government nor offered to pay any of it back
nor has the U.S. Government asked for any of the money back.
12) James Risen and the other Defendants actually know that their defamation of me is
false and misleading. If eTreppid received $30 million from the U.S. Government for
the use of my software and technology that was a fraud or a hoax, eTreppid would
have had to pay the money back to the U.S. Government. See Amended Complaint
106, 130.
13) Risen and the other Defendants know that if Trepp actually believed that eTreppid
had received $30 million as payment for my work that was fraudulent, a con, or a
hoax, Trepps lawyers would be offering to return the $30 million and to cut a deal to
keep Trepp out of jail.
14) Risen and the other Defendants know that my software and technology actually works
from their alleged sources if they are genuine and is valuable, which is why
eTreppid has not been required to pay any of the $30 million back. See Amended
Complaint 146, 151.
15) Defendants defamed me with knowledge of their falsity or at a minimum a reckless
indifference to the truth and biased and dishonest reporting because they knew that
Warren Trepp controlled the company eTreppid and kept the money, yet accuse me
defrauding and conning the U.S. Government.
16) Defendants defamed me with knowledge of their false, published statements or at a
minimum demonstrated a reckless indifference to the truth and biased and dishonest
reporting because they knew that Trepp negotiated with the U.S. Government and
entered into the contracts, yet they accuse me of defrauding and conning the U.S.
Government. See Amended Complaint 12, 46.
17) Defendants defamed me with knowledge of their false published statements or at a
minimum a reckless indifference to the truth and biased and dishonest reporting by
claiming that I fabricated intelligence to make money. In fact, eTreppid was paid for
software work and analysis to fulfill the CIAs concerns, not paid contingent upon
results or conditional upon finding any terrorist threats. Defendants had no reason to
recklessly presume that eTreppid made money contingent upon results. See Amended
Complaint 192.
reporting because my software and technology did work, does work, and is still being
used today successfully by the U.S. Government.2 See Amended Complaint 99.
19) In fact, the Defendants ignore and intentionally omit my ten (10) patent applications,
which attest to and show my expertise. See Amended Complaint 62.
Obviously, software goes through various versions of improvements.

6
reporting because the U.S. Government independently tested and verified the results
of my software and technology. The U.S. Government did not rely upon my word
alone. See Amended Complaint 135.
21) The data detected by my software and technology did predict in advance actual
terrorist incidents and/or meetings, confirming that my work was legitimate. See
Amended Complaint 206.
22) Defendants defamed me with knowledge of their false, published statements or at a
reporting by simply assuming without any reason that the U.S. Government did not
independently confirm the results of my work. See Amended Complaint 48.
reporting by manufacturing, without any reason, that I could fake results without me
believing that the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), NSA, and/or U.S.
military would check if my data accurately predicted events in the real world. The
Defendants story presupposes that I could know that no one would check the validity
of my work. Id.
reporting because I and the companies I worked with had equal or better opportunities
to provide my services to private sector companies, and had no need to work for the
U.S. Government to make the same amount of money or more. Defendants had no
reason to publish false statements, with knowledge or at a minimum recklessly, that
the U.S. Government contracts were any more profitable than my other, private sector
opportunities. Defendants purposefully and falsely publish that my work for the U.S.
Government was more profitable than my other options. See Amended Complaint
46.
25) Defendants defamed me with reckless indifference to the truth and biased and
dishonest reporting by claiming that I persuaded the President, George W. Bush, to
ban international passenger aircraft from entering U.S. airspace and nearly shoot
down passenger aircraft rather than the President of the United States making his own
decisions. The Defendants could not rationally believe that an unknown private
civilian caused the President of the United States to ground international flights.
Such decisions are the responsibility of the President and his national security team,
not my role. See Amended Complaint 66; 75.
minimum demonstrated a reckless indifference to the truth and biased reporting
because the records and documents that the Defendants purport to be reporting from
demonstrate that Michael Flynn, Tim Blixseth, and Warren Trepp all went to
extraordinary and expensive efforts to obtain ownership of my work as being
extremely valuable, while simultaneously claiming that my work had no value.
27) The documents that the Defendants claim to be reporting on make unmistakably clear
that Trepp, Flynn and Blixseth by their various actions believed my software and
technology actually worked and had enormous value. The Defendants knew from the
documents that Trepps, Flynns and Blixseths actions contradicted their words.
Defendants knew that by talking down the value of the technology and software and
attacking me, Trepp, Flynn, and Blixseth were seeking to gain leverage so as to
obtain ownership of my intellectual property at a lower price. See Amended
Complaint 245.
28) Defendants actually knew from the documents and information they claim to be
reporting on that the Defendants could not believe the words of Trepp, Flynn or
Blixseth, or their employees, because their words are sharply contradicted by their
actions.
29) Furthermore, Michael Flynn, Tim Blixseth, and Warren Trepp were attempting to
invoke the fraud exception to bankruptcy laws to invalidate my bankruptcy, and
therefore the Defendants knew that they had motives to fabricate or embellish their
accusations against me.
30) The public records that the Defendants claim to be relying upon though voluminous
overwhelmingly contradict the Defendants defamation of me.
reporting with the technically absurd and obviously false statement that The French
company said that there were simply not enough pixels in the broadcasts to contain
hidden bar codes or unseen numbers. See Amended Complaint 130. This French
private company is never identified, of course. Id.
32) The Defendants Chapter 2 of the Book which smears me depends centrally on the
proposition that there is not enough data space within a video signal to contain hidden
codes, and therefore my work was a fraud and a hoax and I conned the U.S.
Government by claiming that video signals contained hidden data.
dishonest reporting by falsely claiming that I claimed the data was contained only in
the crawl at the bottom of the screen. By diverting attention to only the crawl
Defendants intentionally and knowingly engage in biased and misleading defamation.
dishonest reporting by saying that I claimed the data was a bar code. By diverting
attention to a bar code Defendants intentionally and knowingly engage in biased and
misleading defamation.
35) Defendants defamed me with reckless indifference to the truth and biased reporting
by claiming a television signal could not contain such simple data as latitude and
longitude coordinates, consisting of only six numbers and two letters (East or West
longitude, North or South latitude), plus a date, hidden within the signal.
36) A video signal contains an enormous amount of data. The reason my data
compression technology was valuable is because a video signal consumes a
tremendous amount of transmission band with and storage space.
37) No reputable or honest person could claim or believe, much more falsify information,
that a television video signal cannot contain the hidden data that I uncovered and
reported to the U.S. Government.
38) Either the Defendants actually know that their defamation of me is false, because
codes can be hidden within video signals, or the Defendants based their entire
Chapter 2 on a total failure to research or investigate one of the most central
lynchpins of their entire reporting. Defendants either know that a video signal can in
fact contain the hidden data I found or made no attempt to investigate if it can, before
10
they simply intended to defame me. See Amended Complaint 65, 177, 223.
39) Meanwhile, the Defendants claim that I sought publicity in the news media with
regard to then Congressman and later Governor Jim Gibbons.
40) That is false. In fact, I filed a False Claims Act lawsuit on the advice of counsel,
which was filed under seal in court.
41) Eventually, the court unsealed the lawsuit documents.
42) When the documents were unsealed in court, the news media began to report on what
was said in those court documents.
43) I did not seek news coverage or publicity about the Gibbons issue. See Amended
Complaint 25-28.
44) Eventually, when news interest grew strong, on the advice of counsel at the time, and
the business owner Edra Blixseth, I finally relented and was forced to succumb to
requests for comment and granted only one (1) interview with NBC News, which I
recall lasting about 45 seconds to one minute on the air.
45) On page 8, the Defendants rely upon an article in The Wall Street Journal titled
Congressmans Favors for Friend Include Help in Secret Budget. However, I did
not seek that news coverage or play any role in causing that news coverage.
46) On page 8, the Defendants rely upon an article in The Wall Street Journal titled
Nevada Governor Faces FBI Probe Into Contracts. However, I did not seek that
news coverage or play any role in causing that news coverage.
47) On page 9, the Defendants refer to an article in Bloomberg News titled Yellowstone
Club Divorcee Entangled in Terrorist Software Suits. However, I did not seek that
news coverage or play any role in causing that news coverage.
11
48) On page 9, the Defendants refer to an article in Playboy in 2010. However, I did not
seek that news coverage or play any role in causing that news coverage.
49) On page 10, the Defendants refer to an article in The New York Times in 2011.
However, I did not seek that news coverage or play any role in causing that news
coverage.
50) On page 9, the Defendants refer to an article in Defense News Obamas
Counterterrorism Czar Gave Bogus Intel to Bush white House in 2012. However, I
did not seek that news coverage or play any role in causing that news coverage.
51) Nevertheless, the Defense News article does alert the Defendants to the fact that U.S.
Government officials sought to falsely and misleadingly shift blame to a scapegoat,
me.
52) On September 28, 1998, Warren Trepp and I co-founded eTreppid Technologies
(eTreppid) based on a Contribution Agreement of that date in which we agreed
to own the LLC in equal 50% shares. Trepp put up money and Montgomery
conveyed his software compression technology contained on CD No. 1 to eTreppid.
The business plan of eTreppid and the application of the compression technology
was to compress VHS video tapes used for surveillance in casinos for archiving and
more efficient storage. Over the preceding 20 years I developed and copyrighted
other types of software technology, including but not limited to Object Detection
software which is a crucial component of, among other things, colorizing black and
white movies. In order for the computer to add color, it must be able to recognize
individual objects in the movie which are moving in three dimensions, (that is
moving toward or away from the camera and changing in apparent size), aspect angle,
12
orientation, etc. This was not conveyed to eTreppid and which, per the terms of the
Contribution Agreement, was expressly excluded. Shortly after the formation of
eTreppid, Montgomery offered to sell one part of his Object Detection System
(ODS) software to Trepp for the sum of ten million dollars, which Trepp rejected.
See Amended Complaint 80-81.
53) As reflected in a form SF-95 Attachment A prepared by me with my then attorney
Michael Flynn for presentation to the U.S. Government, Beginning on or about
November 2002, on behalf of the US Air Force, Montgomery began work on military
applications of his technology at Eglin Air Force base to demonstrate the application
of his technologies in the war on terror.
54) I am a citizen of the State of Florida, with a residence in an apartment community in
Miami, Florida. I have reported my address under seal for security reasons.
55) I am registered to vote in Florida. See Exhibit 9. I previously had a temporary address
while settling on the permanent address that I have now. I have updated my voter
registration to reflect my current Miami address.
56) I have reviewed the affidavit of defense counsel Laura Handman attached to the
Defendants initial motion stating that I had not registered to vote in Florida. The
Defendants affidavit is false. I am registered to vote in the State of Florida, and have
now updated my voter registration with my new address.
57) I found on the website of the publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, that the publisher
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company maintains permanent and general
offices in Orlando, Florida at 9400 Southpark Center Loop, Orlando, Florida 32819.
See Exhibit C, attached to the Opposition, which I downloaded from the Defendant
13
publishers website at http://www.hmhco.com/about-hmh/our-offices. These are

statements made by the Defendants about themselves.
58) On the website of the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations I found
that Defendant Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company is registered to do business in
Florida through the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. See
Exhibit D, attached to my Opposition to the Defendants motion concerning Florida
jurisdiction and venue, which I downloaded from the Florida Department of States
website.
59) As shown in those Florida government documents, in 2008 Defendant changed its
name from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt to Houghton Mifflin Publishing
Company. Id. These are statements made by Defendants about themselves.
60) My research of the publisher also uncovered that Defendants rely significantly upon
sales in the Southeast of the United States through a company Amazon for very
substantial sales over the internet. Not coincidentally, Amazons regional distribution
centers or fulfillment centers are located in Ruskin, Florida in Hillsborough County
and Lakeland, Florida, in Polk County. Florida is the largest state in the South East
and the third largest in the nation. See Exhibit E, attached to my Opposition.
61) Much of the defamation which my lawsuit contests is contained within the physical
product physically shipped into Florida for sale, the Book written by James Risen and
published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
62) In 2012, Edra Blixseth brought Chris Pipes, from the U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) from MacDill Air Force Base in Florida to our Palm Desert
offices. SOCOM was interested in pursuing object tracking, mass surveillance, and
14
research on cloaking technologies. Chris Pipes met at our facility, with a

representative of the CIA. While he was in our building, Chris Pipes then received a
telephone call from SOCOM in Florida, and then told us that SOCOM could not
pursue the technology because of what was written about me in the news media. See
Exhibit 8.
63) The Defendant author James Risen actually knew or should have known that most of
my work was with U.S. Government entities in Florida and the contracting offices for
my work are in Florida. A competent Pulitzer Price winning New York Times
reporter who wrote the Book over a four-year period from 2011 through 2014 would
have reviewed the Wall Street Journal article from November 1, 2006, attached,
which includes the explanation:
Source of Secret Funds
One source of secret funds for eTreppid and other companies is the
Special Operations Command. Based in Tampa, Fla., the command
fields special-operations military and intelligence forces around the
globe and is at the forefront of the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. It
has also been rocked by a criminal investigation of a former
contracting officer. The investigation is continuing, according to a
spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Tampa.
In a separate inquiry, Pentagon investigators last year found
evidence that the command kept special accounts for "unrequested
congressional plus-ups," or earmarks. The plus-ups were used to
reward lawmakers with projects in their districts, according to
declassified investigators' notes reviewed by The Wall Street
Journal. The Pentagon's inspector general closed the inquiry after
finding that the accounts weren't illegal.
Mr. Trepp said eTreppid won classified work on its merits and
already had a number of government contracts before Mr. Gibbons
starting making introductions on the company's behalf. Mr.
Gibbons's campaign manager, Robert Uithoven, said the
congressman has been a strong supporter of new defense
technology, particularly after 9/11. But he said there was "no quid
15
pro quo whatsoever" for contributions from contractors. And while

some funding was secret, "it was because of the sensitive nature of
the work," Mr. Uithoven said, not to avoid public scrutiny.
For Mr. Trepp, eTreppid's success at winning multimillion-dollar
federal contracts marks a comeback from his Drexel days. He sat at
Mr. Milken's right arm on the firm's famous X-shaped trading desk
in Beverly Hills, sometimes trading as much as $2 billion in
securities a day. Federal regulators filed a civil securities-fraud
claim against him in 1995, and a Securities and Exchange
Commission administrative judge found that his violations had
been "egregious, recurring and intentional." But she dismissed the
proceeding against him, noting that the allegations were old and he
had left the securities business years earlier.
64) This article and dozens of others, as well as court documents, caused Risen to know
or he should have known upon reasonable inquiry over four years that Warren Trepp
was furiously trying to take ownership of my software and technology, which directly
calls into question his self-serving claims that the software and technology he was
trying to acquire rights to was worthless. The same article also reports:
Mr. Gibbons also got other, unreported gifts of cash and casino
chips from Mr. Trepp, according to sworn testimony in a civil
lawsuit brought by a former executive at eTreppid, Dennis
Montgomery. The suit, filed in February in federal court in Reno,
involves a dispute between Messrs. Trepp and Montgomery over
the rights to certain software code. .
The suit has raised alarms in Washington because of concern that
national secrets will be revealed if it goes to trial. For example, one
of the entities that funded eTreppid is code-named Big Safari and
is a classified program, documents in the case show. The nation's
top intelligence official, John D. Negroponte, recently filed a
statement with the court seeking to seal the case. He wrote that
after personally reviewing the matter, he has concluded that
disclosure of some information connected with the case could do
"exceptionally grave damage" to national security.
65) My greatest opportunities for employment, business, and/or an income are at either
Macdill Air Base near Tampa, Florida and Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton
16
Beach, Florida.
66) As a result, I had had longstanding plans from years past to settle in Florida, in part
because of my failing health and desire to enjoy Florida at this stage in my life.
Florida also has no personal income tax, making it a great place to boost and save
income for eventual retirement. This is also why most military personnel choose
Florida as their home state and residence, which they have the unbridled right to do
under military regulations. This military readership is why Florida is one of the most
important markets for Defendants to sell books.
67) In 2011, I incorporated a business with a partner in Florida to contract with the
military and U.S. Government at bases in Florida to continue the same type of
services and software and technological work that I had performed under eTreppid
and BLXWARE. This business was named Alex James LLC, which I incorporated
through the Legal Zoom service company.
68) Exhibit N attached to my Opposition to the Defendants motion presents the papers I
processed through the Legal Zoom company and my payment information paying
for the company in Florida in 2011.
69) As an expert in national security issues, Defendant James Risen knows that the war
in Afghanistan was run largely from Florida electronically and by drone controllers
located in Florida. General Tommy Franks rarely set foot in Afghanistan but fought
the war from U.S. Air Force Bases in Florida. See Amended Complaint 73.
70) Defendant James Risen also knows that the U.S. military leadership and personnel are
concentrated mainly in Florida, secondarily in California, and thirdly in Texas.
Because U.S. military servicemen can easily and by right choose their State of
17
residence despite being deployed, Floridas lack of an income tax makes Florida a
very attractive state for U.S. servicemen, often poorly paid. As a result, many of the
nations top military leaders, current and former, choose Florida.
71) Defendant Risen knew in publishing the Book that Florida is an enormous market as
the nations now third largest State, including with many retirees with more time to
read books than the average American.
72) The team on which I worked had contracts directly with the intelligence agencies at
the military bases in FLORIDA. I have video showing the work. The contracting
officers are out of those military bases, many of which are classified. I met and
worked with CIA officials in Florida at various military bases. However, I cannot
identify the exact units stationed at those bases, which is classified information.
73) We at eTreppid and later BLXWARE did most of our work with units stationed at
MacDill Air Force Base and Eglin Air Force Base, whose identity is secret. See
February 14, 2004, Order for Supplies or Services attached, with the Ship To
address of UQ USSOCOM/SOAL-SP (Mohr), 7701 Tampa Point Boulevard, MacDill
Air Force Base, Florida 33621.
74) Most of the payments for our work, the work I did for eTreppid and later
BLXWARE, came out of the CIA offices in Florida and SOCOM, the U.S. Special
Operations Command of the U.S. military at Macdill Air Force Base, Florida.
75) The U.S. Southern Command of the U.S. military is located in Dade County, Florida,
at 9301 NW 33rd Street, Doral, Fla. 33172, having telephone switchboard telephone
number (305) 437-1000. See Exhibit 5, attached.
76) The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) of the U.S. military is located at MacDill
18
Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida. See Exhibit 6, attached.

77) Relating to my work conducting surveillance of international communications, major
fiber optics cables run from Florida across the ocean, which is partly why my work
opportunities for my experience and capabilities are in Florida.
78) I intend to call witnesses who can testify that my defamed software and technology
does indeed work and is not a hoax personnel based at Macdill Air Base near Tampa,
Florida and at Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton Beach, Florida, where I did a
lot of his work, as some of my most significant witnesses. The organizational units
housed at Macdill and Eglin used my software, technology, and work extensively
during the time period addressed by Defendants defamation of me. Those witnesses
can prove that the defamatory statements about me are false.
79) Relevant officials at Macdill and Eglin (and all facilities that my work has provided
services to anywhere) make their own contracting decisions and do not rely upon
contracting offices in Washington, D.C., nor even at the Central Intelligence Agency
in Langley, Virginia, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, or the National Security
Agency in Fort Meade, Maryland.
80) Potential witnesses in this case, with whom I have worked, are largely in Florida,
including:
Goss, Porter, former Director of CIA, now in Miami, Florida
Johns, Ken, Macdill AFB, Florida
Lyons, XXXXX, Macdill AFB, Florida
Macbeth, W. Rhys, Eglin AFB, Florida
Nazelrod, Craig, Eglin AFB, Florida
Pipes, XXXXX, Macdill AFB, Florida
Roche, James, Macdill, Florida
Rumsfeld, Donald, now in Florida
Stillman, Phillip, Attorney for Dennis Montgomery, now in Miami, Florida
Madden, Tom, Boca Raton, Florida
19
Olivia, Adrian, Eglin AFB, Florida

Bartholomew, Mary L, Eglin AFB, Florida
Fiamengo, Nicholas A, Eglin AFB, Florida
Freeman, Gregory J, Eglin AFB, Florida
Savage, Cynthia, Eglin AFB, Florida
McCool, John C, Eglin AFB, Florida
Temple, James K, Eglin AFB, Florida
Griffin, Susan M., Macdill AFB, Florida
Russell, Deborah, Macdill AFB, Florida
Nettelhorst, Doug M, Macdill AFB, Florida
Stallworth, Hugh T, Macdill AFB, Florida
Bob McCaskey, Macdill AFB, Florida
Crutchfield, Chris, Macdill AFB, Florida
Melnyk, Michael S., Macdill AFB, Florida
Lopez, Tina M, Macdill AFB, Florida
Cerny, Jeffrey D., Macdill AFB, Florida
Muccio, Anthony B., Eglin AFB, Florida
McKinney, Scott E Lt.Col., Eglin AFB, Florida
Purvis, Brad Civ, Eglin AFB, Florida
Kirsch, Jim', Eglin AFB, Florida
Hughes, Stacey L, Eglin AFB, Florida
81) Ultimately, I became aware that James Risen had published these false reports in the
Book and that Risen was conducting a nationwide publicity campaign, particularly
aimed at Florida, to sell the Book.
82) I heard and watched James Risen repeatedly in national television and radio
interviews discussing his book but primarily about me, mostly ignoring the rest of his
Book in those interviews while attacking me as a private individual.
83) In radio, television, and newspaper interviews, James Risen mainly focused on
libeling and slandering me in order to sell the Book.
84) Risens appearances on radio and television were not just commentary but attempts to
stimulate and promote the sale of books inside Florida and elsewhere.
85) Risen was speaking on radio and television to move books off of Florida bookstores
and shelves and to the checkout counter in Florida.
20
86) The defamation by Defendants of me is not a criticism of the U.S. Government in the
District of Columbia, but excuses the U.S. Government as an innocent and
unsuspecting victim, while blaming and defaming me. Therefore, the U.S.
Government has not suffered harm within Washington, D.C.
87) I had relatively little contact with the U.S. Government in Washington, D.C. It was
the companies that I worked under, eTreppid and later BLXWARE, who contracted
with regional offices at various U.S. Government bases or facilities. I interacted
almost entirely with technical people pursuant to the contracts.
88) It was Warren Trepp and later Edra Blixseth who used their contacts with the U.S.
Government to seek and arrange contracts for our work. I did not persuade the U.S.
Government to hire me, Trepp and Blixseth did. My own interaction with offices or
officials in the Washington, D.C. area was very limited because I was not the one
running the companies nor primarily interacting with the U.S. Government.
89) Starting as early as 2011, I was contacted by James Risen asking about my secret
work under contract for the U.S. Government in support of anti-terrorism efforts.
90) I see that in James Risens Declaration attached to the Defendants Motion to
Dismiss, Risen states that he has been working on the Book since 2011.
91) I continually provided numerous warnings, in writing, to James Risen that the claims
he mentioned and later published in October 2014 in the Book are false.
92) However, James Risen attempted to blackmail me by demanding that I provide
classified documents and information to him or else he would publish the false claims
that he later did publish in the Book. That is, when I warned him that the reports
were false, James Risen responded to me by telling me that he would not publish
21
those false claims if instead I provided him with classified information and
documents. See Exhibit 7. That is, James Risen demanded that I commit multiple
crimes as the price for Risen not publishing the false reports about me. Of course, I
refused to be blackmailed into breaking the law as the price for being defamed.
93) Writers Aram Roston and James Risen were both after John Brennans information.
They both knew that I had worked for John Brennan. Exhibit 7.
94) Roston and Risen published false and defamatory information about me to try to
pressure me into releasing classified information about John Brennan and others in
the war on terror to them as the price for them telling the truth.
95) However, Roston and Risen knew that my work was real and legitimate, because they
sought to obtain secret and classified information from Brennan from me.
96) Roston and Risen published defamatory statements about me to punish and to
pressure that is, coerce me for not illegally disclosing classified information and
material to them.
97) In both cases, I told Risen and Roston I would have to turn over classified
information, a road I wasnt willing to go down. I was never what they were after.
They were writing these stories to hurt me so that I would provide classified
information about the various administrations. I was just their pawn.
98) Attached as Exhibit 7 are a few of my communications to James Risen, which I have
produced to Defendants as initial disclosures, informing him in advance of the
publication of the Book that his claims were not only false but preposterous and that
his sources were clearly unreliable.
99) In fact, on November 1, 2012, discussing the Book that he was then writing, I warned
22
James Risen under the email address TheAgencyInsider@Hotmail.com that his

reporting was false including because Warren Trepp was the CEO of eTreppid and
kept all the money.
100)
Risen also promised in that same email thread: If you give us the Brennan
emails, we will write a story.

101)
However, this response was in the context of a long back-and-forth discussion
concerning the falsehood of Risens accusations against me.

102)
In fact, in a November 1, 2012, email thread, attached as Exhibit 7, which I have
produced to Defendants as initial disclosures, discussing the Book that he was then
writing, I warned James Risen under the email address
TheAgencyInsider@Hotmail.com that his reporting was false including because
Warren Trepp was the CEO of eTreppid and kept all the money. See Amended
Complaint 47.
103)
Risen also promised in the attached email thread, which I have produced to
Defendants as initial disclosures: As I said on the phone, I protect my sources. I

will never divulge the identify of my sources in a leak investigation. But I also have
to know that the source is telling me the truth. Jim Exhibit 7.
104)
So Risen admitted that it was his professional responsibility to determine that the
sources he used to defame me are telling the truth. But Risen did not do that. The
sources he relied upon were obviously not telling the truth, as is patently obvious.
105)
I warned James Risen concerning the falsehood of his reporting in that November
1, 2012, email thread, which I have produced to Defendants as initial disclosures,

attached:
23
There is a reason the CIA and NSA were there, you must know
that.
Do you really think the government invoked the State Secrets
Priviledge from beiing embarrassed or conned? Negroponte in his
in camera declaration, if ever released, was spell it all of out.
They governemnt never wanted information to come out regarding
the other work. The program started out spying on terrorist, and
under Obama quickly moved to spying on Americans!! A program
which was started by Brennan in 2003 and continues to this day.
This technology is being used today to spy on Americans,
including candidate Romney.
I don't see you ever publishing that information? Exhibit 7.
106)
Furthermore, this November 1, 2012, exchange concerning Risens plans writing
the Book which was eventually published on October 14, 2014, was seven (7) months
before the revelations by Edward Snowden that mass surveillance of Americans was
occurring. Therefore, Risen actually knew in 2013 that I was telling the truth and was
being lied to by his so-called sources. My discussions with James Risen on
November 1, 2012, were proven true in mid-2013. Therefore, Risen had actual
knowledge that I was indeed a whistleblower and that the sources he relied upon were
falsely discrediting me to cover up wrong-doing. In this, of course, James Risen
distorted and falsified the real story.
107)
I made it clear to James Risen, in the phone call referenced in the email, that the
Obama administration used mass surveillance technology to alter the 2012 election in
FLORIDA, and that they will use the technology again in 2016!
108)
In June of 2012, in a telephone call, I told James Risen and Eric Lichtblau that
their information about me in their 2011 New York Times story was incorrect, and
they needed to correct it. I also made it clear that I was under a US Protective Order
24
in Nevada, and a State Secrets Privilege order by the Director of National Intelligence
not allowing me to discuss my work. In addition, there were sealed documents still in
the Nevada case. I also made it clear, that the State secrets privilege was also issued,
to protect the work I did on domestic surveillance. I told them I knew they met with
my ex attorney Mike Flynn, for several days, in regards to their story, and suggested,
he had other motives for his conduct!
109)
I also made it clear in June of 2012 that I had a brain aneurysm that was going to
be repaired soon, and a risky procedure, and wanted my name cleared in case I
became incapacitated or I died.
110)
Therefore, the Defendants believed they could get away with their defamation
because I would probably become incapacitated or die in the meantime.

111)
In 2013, going over Risens and Lichtblaus heads, I sent emails directly to the
editors of The New York Times telling them their story was wrong and to retract it.
112)
I sent an email to the editors of The New York Times, demanding that they
correct the false reporting about me in 2012.

113)
In 2012-2014, on at least 10 different occasions, I made it clear to Aram Roston
of Playboy, his story was wrong, and told him to retract it.
114)
Carlotta Wells, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney assigned to matters
involving me, told me that if I talk to the press or leak information, I will be charged
with treason for disclosing my work with the NSA and CIA. She told me when I
signed my Top Secret clearance, I forfeited my right to protect my first amendment
rights.
115)
Carlotta Wells additionally said that If the US Government wants to leak false
25
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Joe Eskridge, M.D.

Swedish Neuroscience Institute
550 17th Ave #500
Seattle WA 98122
206.320.4144
June 27, 2014

To Whom It May Concern
Dear Sirs,
I, Dr. Joe Eskridge recently treated Dennis Montgomery who is a 60 year old man who
suffered from a cerebral aneurysm. His aneurysm was detected in 2011. He does not
smoke and does not have any congenital blood vessel diseases that contribute to aneurysm
development.
High blood pressure can accelerate aneurysm growth and increase the risk of rupture and
stroke. Stress can increase blood pressure and contribute to aneurysm growth. On a
more probable than not basis stress related hypertension caused the development and
growth of his aneurysm.
I have performed over 5000 brain artery repair and embolization procedures over the
past 30 years. I was Professor of Radiology and Neurosurgery at the University of
Washington Medical School from 1987-2004.
Sincerely yours,
Joe Eskridge, M.D.
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ronald J. Logar, Esq., Nevada Bar No.: 0303

Eric A. Pulver, Esq., Nevada Bar No.: 7874
Law Office of Logar & Pulver, PC
225 S. Arlington Ave., Ste A
Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775-786-5040; Fax: 775-786-7544
Michael J. Flynn, Esq., Mass. State Bar No.: 172780
Philip H. Stillman, Esq., California State Bar No.: 152861
Flynn & Stillman
224 Birmingham Drive, Suite 1A4
Cardiff, CA 92007
Phone: 888-235-4279; Fax: 888-235-4279
Admitted Pro Hac Vice in related Federal Case No. 3:06-cv-0056-BES-VPC
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
ETREPPID TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California )
corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
DENNIS MONTGOMERY, an individual,
MONTGOMERY FAMILY TRUST, a California
Trust and DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
CASES Nos.: 3:06-cv-00145-BES-VPC & 3:06-cvN-06-00056-BES-VPC
SEALED DECLARATION OF DENNIS

MONTGOMERY IN SUPPORT OF HIS
OPPOSITION TO DODS AND ETREPPIDS
MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS
Defendants.
_____________________________________
DENNIS MONTGOMERY, an individual; and
MONTGOMERY FAMILY TRUST, a
California Trust,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
eTREPPID TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Nevada LLC; WARREN TREPP, an
individual; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants
THIS DECLARATION IS FILED UNDER SEAL

AND MAY BE VIEWED AND/OR READ ONLY
BY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE BRIAN E.
SANDOVAL
1
2
SEALED DECLARATION OF DENNIS MONTGOMERY
3
I, Dennis Montgomery, declare:
4
5
1.
I am over age 18 and a party to two civil lawsuits involving Warren Trepp and my
company eTreppid Technologies. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if
called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to them.
BACKGROUND
9
10
2.
I have been a computer programmer since approximately 1978 developing software
11
programs and the source codes for the programs in thousands of different and varied applications,
12
but mostly involving thousands of different programs for data compression, pattern recognition,
13
anomaly detection and an Object Detection System. 1 These include but are not limited to the
14
following:
15
16
a. Software programs applicable to medicine, mostly involving anomaly detection; and pattern
17
recognition and mostly developed between 1981 and 1996. These are my copyrights and/or my
18
copyright derivatives.
19
b. An Object Detection System (ODS) derived from my copyrights involving anomaly detection
20
and pattern recognition, but having far more universal application and adaptability to many areas
21
22
other than medicine, mostly developed between 1994 and 1998. These programs constitute the
23
basis for my work on certain special military contracts. There are thousands of software developers
24
who have worked for decades attempting to develop an ODS comparable to mine; and I am
25
26
27
28
I use these terms generically to define the broadest possible genus of software programs
relating to this area of software development - sort of like saying automobiles as a category of four
wheel powered vehicles. But the different types of anomaly detection and pattern recognition
programs are vastly greater than the types of automobiles currently in existence worldwide.
-1-
1
2
unaware of anyone who has successfully created such software.

c. Data compression developed between 1996 and 1998 - conveyed to eTreppid on CD No.1";
3
and adapted for use in casino surveillance between 1998 and 2002, pursuant to our business plan
4
5
at eTreppid.
d. Data compression and pattern recognition programs, developed by me as an independent
contractor at eTreppid between 1998 and December 31, 2001 consisting of a part of eTreppids
work relating to casino surveillance - some involving patents assigned by me derived from CD No.
9
10
11
1"; and other programs not derived from CD No. 1 licensed to eTreppid pursuant to promises
made to me by Warren Trepp.
12
e. Data streaming compression for movies, not contained on CD No. 1" and mostly developed by
13
me between 1994 and 1998. I discussed these programs with Trepp before execution of the Sept.
14
28, 1998 Contribution Agreement and offered them for Five Million Dollars, which he rejected;
15
16
and which we again discussed years later in 2002 and 2003 and which he again rejected for Five
17
Million Dollars. In 2003 we also had several conversations about a sale for Ten Million Dollars
18
and/or promises by Trepp of licensing the software as described in my answers to interrogatories
19
attached to my opposition to the Governments and Trepps motions for protective orders.
20
f. Multiple software programs developed, owned, possessed and used exclusively by me derived
21
22
from my ODS between 1994 and December 31, 2002, some of the source codes for which are
23
direct derivatives of my copyrights, and which, beginning in November, 2002 , I began to adapt to
24
military applications on behalf of the Department of Defense, the Navy, the Air Force, and the
25
Central Intelligence Agency, mostly utilized in the war on terror between March 2003 and the
26
present.
27
28
The software programs and the source codes owned, possessed and used exclusively
-2-
1
2
by me on behalf of the foregoing Government agencies all derive from my exclusive copyrights
generally relating to anomaly detection and pattern recognition, and more specifically relating to
3
the source codes used in my ODS; and derivatives thereof which enabled me to detect and
4
5
decode embedded and encrypted al Qaeda communications to its field operatives. Presumably, the
sealed Government declaration informs and educates this Court with respect to this aspect of my
software technology.
Over the 25 years I have been developing software programs, I have collected and
9
10
11
stored thousands of different computer files and programs on my computers and on many different
types of computer storage media. Some of this collection was stored at my storage facility and some
12
of that was taken and/or damaged by the FBI. I generally store some of the programs and codes I
13
have developed and/or am working on on the computers I am currently using. The Government
14
took my computers during its raid on my home and storage facility on March 1 and March 3, 2006;
15
16
and the governments retention of my computers and computer storage files from my home and
17
storage facility has caused me, and will continue to cause me, irreparable harm because its retention
18
affects my livelihood and ability to work. Additionally, as a result of the Governments
19
unconstitutional raid, I do not have access to computer files which would enable me at this time to
20
provide a more detailed chronology of events relating to the SAP I worked on and at issue in these
21
22
cases. However, since my departure from eTreppid, as recited below, I have been able to
23
reconstruct on new computers specific software programs that I previously used in the decoding of
24
al Jazeera satellite television broadcasts encrypted with al Qaeda instructions to its field operatives.
25
I assume this work product or output from my software programs, together with my daily
26
interaction with top CIA officials and field operatives, is one of the concerns which must be recited
27
28
at least obliquely in the sealed Government declaration.

-3-
1
2
5.
More recently, notwithstanding the unconstitutional raid perpetrated on my home and
storage by Warren Trepp using his political influence with James Gibbons, (Gibbons has admitted
3
making phone calls to initiate criminal action against me on behalf of Trepp), Daniel Bogden and
4
5
the local FBI, I have provided the output from my decoding programs, without compensation, to
our Government in order to stop terrorist attacks and save American lives. My source codes for this
decoding technology which derives from my ODS are what Trepp and several Government
officials were attempting to steal from me when they raided my home.
9
10
11
6.
The Government has now held my computers and storage media for over six months
knowing I do not have possession of any classified information and knowing that all of the source
12
codes used on the special Government contracts worked on by me at eTreppid Technologies are
13
owned by me. No other person within our Government or at eTreppid has ever had access to the
14
source codes used on the special Government contracts. Anyone who swears under oath to the
15
16
contrary is lying and/or committing perjury. Obviously, if they did have access to this technology,
17
Trepp would have licensed and/or sold it to the Government for hundreds of millions of dollars. I
18
completely and zealously guarded the secrecy and confidentiality of my source codes used on the
19
special Government contracts at eTreppid, both from the Government, including the CIA, and from
20
eTreppid, as the exclusive owner and sole possessor. No person at eTreppid is able, to my
21
22
knowledge, to create the source codes that I have created having multiple applications in the war on
23
terror and other military uses. Conclusive proof on this issue is established by the recent interception
24
of the attempts by terrorists operating out of London to blow up jetliners originating in London and
25
bound for the US. I gave the appropriate authorities within the US Government accurate and very
26
specific intelligence regarding this terrorist plot, from my decoding software as I have done in
27
28
the past, weeks prior to the arrests by the London authorities - without compensation.
-4-
1
2
7.
Neither Warren Trepp, nor eTreppid Technologies, nor any person working there
have ever owned, possessed or processed output from my source codes used in the special
3
Government contracts. Other eTreppid individuals, as well as Government officials identified
4
5
6
7
8
herein, had access to the output only after I had processed it.
8.
In 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 al Jazeera output on two occasions - first
9
10
11
in September, 2004, 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. Secondly, about a
12
year later in September 2005, when my conflict with Trepp greatly intensified. On the latter
13
occasion, I told him it was a hold-up. I refused on both National Security grounds and over
14
Trepps failure to pay me licensing fees and to resolve our conflict over the split of the proceeds
15
16
derived from any sale. Trepp had previously acknowledged my ownership of the technology in
17
numerous conversations and promised to work things out. In September-October, 2005, Trepp
18
said that our deal would have to wait because he had other obligations and began to threaten me
19
as our conflict intensified. This ultimately resulted in my departure from eTreppid in January, 2006.
20
Since then I have given the highest levels of our Government vital national security information free
21
22
23
24
25
26
of charge while Trepp and his local Government cronies have raided my home and storage and tried
to get me indicted.
9.
I was an independent contractor throughout my time at eTreppid, notwithstanding
Trepps attempt to change my status for tax reasons in January 2003. Before that eTreppid even
treated me as an independent contractor. But his tax changes attempting to make me an employee
27
28
only reflect what we both knew and what is now obvious to any impartial observer. I owned the
-5-
1
2
technology, it was not developed while I was at eTreppid, and I exclusively controlled it. He was
attempting to steal what he refused to pay for, his modus operandi for his entire adult life, as shown
3
by his position as Head Trader for Michael Milken in the junk bond scam. While at eTreppid, I
4
5
fulfilled all of the indicia of an independent contractor even after January, 2003 when Trepp
realized the value of the technology in the war on terror. No one controlled, instructed, supervised,
or directed my work in the slightest manner - not one aspect of my work was controlled etc by
anyone or anything. Not one part of the source codes I used on Special Access Programs (SAP)
9
10
11
was ever created at eTreppid or on eTreppid computers. All codes used on the special military
contracts were created by me at my home or elsewhere. None of the source codes used on SAP
12
were ever on the premises at eTreppid, nor were any of them ever contained in eTreppid computers.
13
Almost all of my work on the SAP was done by me in an area occupied by me alone. Any
14
adaptation or changes to any of the source codes was done at my home.
15
The Negroponte Declaration
16
17
10.
I have not read the sealed declaration filed by the DoD. Therefore, I obviously do
18
not know its contents. I have read John Negropontes public declaration. I agree that the facts
19
involved herein relating to specific military contracts - the Special Access Programs, ( the SAP);
20
and that my software technology used to process data and create output from that data in SAP,
21
22
involve vital national security concerns, the disclosure of which would cause exceptionally grave
23
damage to the national security of the United States. I can only presume that the sealed
24
declaration relates to work I did on SAP, probably without referencing specific individuals that I
25
worked with from the CIA, and without describing precisely what I did. I expect, given the
26
Governments failure to use certain information that I processed which turned out to be accurate,
27
28
but on which the Government failed to act, resulting in multiple civilian and military casualties, that
-6-

such information is not in the sealed declaration. As to the information I provided which succeeded
1
2
in stopping al Qaeda attacks, like the recent London Airliner plots, I hope that the Government has
alerted this Court to the exceptional and grave importance of the use of my technology in the war
3
4
5
on terror.
11.
However, I vigorously dispute whether any of the applicable protocols for properly
classifying either the data I received from the Government, the processing I performed, or the
output I created, was ever properly designated classified information by an Original
Classification Authority pursuant to The National Security Industrial Program Operating Manual
9
10
(The Manual) while it was in my exclusive possession, custody and control at eTreppid. Much of
11
the work I did was simply too urgent and the output too vital to conform to any of the Manual
12
protocols, the eTreppid personnell were too incompetent to implement the protocols, the cost was
13
too great, and the CIA operatives I dealt with did not trust anybody at eTreppid but me - at least that
14
is what several of them said.
15
16
12.
For security reasons, and because I zealously protected the secrecy of my software
17
source codes from everyone, no other eTreppid employee had access to anything I was working on
18
in connection with SAP. Indeed, it was commonly discussed with the CIA field operatives, that any
19
20
leak to anyone at eTreppid would cause serious damage to national security. In general, eTreppid
employees were too incompetent to be involved, including Sloan Venables and Patty Gray. Nor did
21
22
any CIA or other Government official have access to the software programs that I used to create the
23
output on SAP. They repeatedly tried to gain access to the source codes and failed; including
24
attempts to reverse engineer the output but failed. In December, 2003, certain CIA Operatives
25
talked about just taking it after I had decoded pre 9/11 al Jazeera signals embedded with the
26
World Trade Center coordinates as hereinafter described. But I informed them that the programs
27
28
would self-destruct and that I would stop processing the encrypted data from the al Jazeera
-7-

broadcasts. Because of the statements about just taking it, I informed Warren Trepp and Edward
1
2
Charbonneau, an Associate Director of the CIA in charge of Technology. Charbonneau

immediately flew to Reno and signed the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1, agreeing not to
3
4
5
attempt to seize the technology.

13.
Much of the output was personally hand delivered by me to CIA field operatives,
some of whom flew directly to Reno to pick up the output, and personally watched me process
data, some of which they brought with them. Several of the CIA field operatives scrutinized me for
months and attempted to look over my shoulder in order to gain access to the programs I used
9
10
11
and how I processed the data. Their efforts also failed.

14.
Several of the CIA field operatives told me repeatedly that they did not trust Warren
12
Trepp and that I should never allow him or anyone working for him to gain access to any of the
13
source codes for the programs. They recommended that I insert intrusion devices in to the programs
14
in order to prevent anyone from gaining access to the programs. On several occasions, two CIA field
15
16
operatives, who I worked with for long and intense weeks at a time, Sid Smith and Bill R, told me
17
that they did not trust the FBI, or the National Security Agency, and/or Paul Haraldsen. They knew
18
that I had begun to trust Haraldsen (which proved to be a mistake) and warned me about him. They
19
20
told me that anyone with close ties inside the Government with Warren Trepp was suspect
because the technology was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the war on terror. At one
21
22
23
24
25
point, the CIA removed the local FBI from eTreppids building.
15.
As to how the Government classified its reports concerning my output after it left
my possession, I do not know. Presumably, given what I know about the output I gave, the
Government has internally classified this data without ever giving me copies of that classified
26
information. I do not have possession of any of those reports.
27
28
16
Mr. Negroponte never personally observed the processing of data or the creation of
-8-

my output. Presumably, he has received either the output I created on some form of electronic
1
2
storage media or reports concerning the same. I was told by numerous officials that the results from
my output were included in regular briefings to the President.
3
4
17.
The work I performed pursuant to Special Access Programs on specified military
contracts required that I have a Top Secret Security Clearance with access to Special Information
Compartmentalized. (SIC).
7
8
The Application of my ODS Technology to Special Access Programs

18.
Predator Project, USAF - November, 2002.
In October - November, 2002, I
9
10
developed a software program from my data streaming technology, not contained on CD No. 1"
11
and obviously created when even eTreppid treated me as an independent contractor, for use on the
12
unmanned aerial vehicle, the Predator. This program enabled the Predator to stream video at a
13
much faster rate than the rate then in use. The work was done pursuant to Contract # 209545S
14
originating in a Top Secret area at Eglin Air Force Base. My contacts included Colonel Rhys
15
16
Macbeth, Thayne Wescoatt, Debora Moffitt, and Chris Crutchfield. I will need depositions of each
17
of these individuals and others, together with all of the documentation used on the project in order
18
to prove my ownership, possession, custody and control of the technology used, how it was used,
19
20
how it differed from then existing technology I had transferred to eTreppid contained on CD No.
1"; and how I adapted my software to the specific application used on Predator. The adaptation
21
22
23
24
25
process is proof of my ownership and exclusive possession. The foregoing individuals watched me
as I demonstrated the application of the technology in the Predator program.
19.
Pointer, Predator, USAF - February, 2003. Between November 2002 and March,
2003, as a result of my work on the above Predator project, I discussed my object detection system
26
(ODS) with and/or interacted with numerous Air Force officers, consultants agents and officials,
27
28
including but not limited to Major Paul Hastert, Capt. Robert Lyons, Col. Rhys Macbeth, Peter
-9-

Wiedemann, Col. Felder, Matt Belmonte, David Whigham and others in connection with testing to
1
2
detect and/or track objects while streaming compressed unmanned aerial vehicle Pointer video for
Predator. Warren Trepp also advised these and other officials that I had developed an ODS which
3
4
could fulfill their tests. Between November, 2002 and January-February, 2003, Trepp explicitly
requested me to use my ODS, which obviously was then completely developed, (when even
Trepp treated me as an independent contractor) to prove to the Air Force that I could detect and
track objects inside streaming video. He agreed that if I passed the tests, he would make a deal
with me either to purchase or license my ODS technology. The tests were 90% successful. I
9
10
adapted my ODS system to use compressed streaming video on an unmanned aerial vehicle
11
Pointer to the ground and then to a central location while detecting and tracking objects on the
12
ground. The validation tests were conducted in February, 2003 at Eglin Air Force Base. The dates,
13
results, and testing procedures, together with all of the related documentation and involvement of
14
Government officials all prove my exclusive ownership and possession of the technology. I will
15
16
require the depositions of at least ten of the Government officials involved together with all of the
17
documentation and test results in order to prove my ownership, custody, possession and control of
18
the ODS. It has a value in excess of Five Hundred Million Dollars. If this case is to proceed, I will
19
20
provide the specific names of all individuals involved in this project, generally named USAF UAV
Battlelab, Contracts: F08651-03-P- 0182 and 0129. These contracts extended from March 26, 2003
21
22
23
24
25
until September 30, 2005, when my conflict with Trepp erupted.

20.
Tracking al Qaeda, USSOCOM and CIA - September, 2003. By June - September,
2003, my ODS had attracted the interest of the CIA and USSOCOM in connection with using
Predator to detect and track al Qaeda operatives in the field, including al Zarquawi, and specific
26
objects related to him such as cars and vans, with live video feeds encoded and scanning for
27
28
objects and people in real time. My object tracking was placed on a specific number of DV
-10-

laptops used by SOCOM and CIA operatives in the field. I interacted on a regular basis with these
1
2
operatives in connection with the use and application of my technology. Special servers were
installed in the POC Predator Operation Command at Nellis Air Force Base and at Fort Bragg to
3
4
look for, detect and track specific objects, which were, in fact, positively identified. I worked with
many people in special groups in the CIA, at Nellis, at Fort Bragg, at Eglin etc in connection with
my object tracking system. I will require all of the documentation, and depositions of at least twenty
individuals associated with this project, including General Brown, Mark Race, Michael Holland,
Jerry Dvorak, Kenneth Johns, Lance Lombardo, Sue Griffin, Merv Leavitt. Eric Barnes and Robert
9
10
11
12
13
14
Dailey . The contracts, USZA26-03-P-3294 and H92222-04-0006/DO-0001 to 0004 extended from

September, 19, 2003 until September 30, 2005 when my conflict with Trepp erupted.
21.
Decoding Al Jazeera, CIA - October 28, 2003. In September, 2003, the CIA brought Al
Jazeera video tapes to me and asked if I could detect embedded and/or encrypted patterns within
the tapes with my technology. I said I would try. In October 2003, I detected embedded patterns
15
16
within the al Jazeera tapes and on or about October 28, 2003, I broke the encryption. Soon after I
17
broke the encryption, the CIA brought me tapes relating to the World Trade Center bombing as
18
described below.
19
20
a. Muhaya Complex Bombing - November 8, 2003. On October 28, 2003, the same day I broke
the encryption, I gave this output to the CIA. That output consisted of the latitude/longitude
21
22
coordinates for a specific location, the Muhaya Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with the
23
associated date of November 8, 2003. On that date, hours before a suicide attack, the US State
24
Department, using my data, issued an urgent warning about an imminent attack. A suicide bomber
25
driving a truck detonated a bomb outside the Complex killing and wounding over one hundred
26
people. I was later told by operatives in the CIA that we had either failed to follow through quickly
27
28
enough or that the Saudis had failed to act. But I have always questioned why the State Department
-11-

made an urgent public warning just hours before the attack when the CIA knew at least 10 days
1
2
before the attack?

b. Miscellaneous Targets and Dates - November 2003 to October, 2004. Within days of the
3
4
Muhaya bombing, a large group pf CIA officials came to me and asked me to start processing all of
the data that they had. The CIA gave me a list of its operatives who I dealt with and could call any
time day or night. There are 18 names on the list with their home, office cell and pager phone
numbers. I will require the depositions of all 18 of these individuals in order to prove my exclusive
ownership, custody, possession and preservation of the secrecy of my software. Over the next
9
10
several months, I undertook the arduous and time consuming task of extracting data from the al
11
Jazeera satellite signals from tapes brought to me by the CIA. I decoded specific target coordinates
12
and dates within the US and overseas. But the Agency mostly concentrated on the US targets. I was
13
told by several CIA operatives that the output I gave them prevented several terrorist attacks in the
14
US. I have a list of the target coordinates in the US where my technology decoded encrypted targets.
15
16
I also specifically gave the CIA exact overseas locations in London, Madrid, and Iraq months before
17
bombings took place in those locations. I gave the CIA the precise coordinates for the London
18
Tube bombing, and the Madrid Train bombing long before the bombings took place. I know
19
20
what documents and electronic media exist in order to prove that my technology decoded the
targets well in advance of the bombings. I do not know why the attacks were not prevented. The
21
22
pressure on me to process was extreme. I was openly watched day and night by CIA operatives for
23
over a year.
24
c. The World Trade Center Tape and the CIA Letter - January 4, 2004.
25
In December, 2003,
the CIA asked me to process a tape without disclosing any details about the tape. I did so and
26
decoded a specific target coordinate in New York. I later learned that the tape consisted of al Jazeera
27
28
broadcasts in July-August, 2001 and the location I decoded was the World Trade Center in New
-12-

York. Immediately upon decoding the tape, Sid Smith, a CIA field operative told me to destroy all
1
2
of the work that I had done on the tape and to never discuss it with anyone, particularly Warren
Trepp. Sid Smith told me that the CIA was concerned that if any leak occurred, I would be
3
4
subpoened by the 9/11 Commission. Smith warned me never to trust Trepp, never to give him or his
employees access to any of my technology or the output, and to protect my technology from him
at all costs. After I decoded the World Trade Center tape, Smith told me that the technology was so
vital to national security that I could never copyright or patent it, and that the CIA was considering
just taking it. At that time, around Christmas, 2003, I placed intrusion devices into my software
9
10
programs to protect them from both the Government and Trepp. Around the same time, the FBI
11
brought in blade servers to accelerate the processing time. But the FBI got into a conflict with
12
the CIA over control of the entire operation and the CIA forced the FBI to leave the building. I did
13
inform Trepp of the just taking it conversation with Smith. As a result, Edward Charbonneau,
14
Associate Director of the CIA for Technical Operations flew to Reno and signed the letter dated
15
16
January 4, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. At that time, Charbonneau said the CIA would
17
purchase the technology. Trepp then gave him the price of Five Hundred Million Dollars.
18
Charbonneau said to keep processing and that he would initiate a purchase plan.
19
20
d. Decoding Live Al Jazeera Broadcasts. In February, 2004, working with rotating CIA
operatives, I started taking data directly from live al Jazeera satellite signals. Target coordinates were
21
22
provided for US locations and the London, Madrid and Iraq locations from live, real time broadcasts.
23
I had discussions with CIA operatives, including Peter Wiedemann and others, including Paul
24
Haraldsen (who I believed at that time was some sort of liason between the CIA and NSA) about
25
how al Jazeera and al Qaeda were encrypting their signals and I explained in detail what I believed
26
was the technique used, and a specific technique that would make the encoding even harder to
27
28
break. Shortly after one of these discussions, al Jazeera changed their encryption pattern, which I
-13-

again broke. These changes were explicitly discussed with Wiedemann and Haraldsen. On June 28,
1
2
2004, al Jazeera changed their pattern again, reverting back to their patterns from four months
earlier. I discussed these matters in detail with Haraldsen.
3
4
22.
Paul Haraldsen and the Air Force Take Over - The Christmas Eve Bombing. 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
9
10
project at the end of 2004. After June, 2004, Haraldsen told me that I should give him all of my
11
output, which I did on a weekly basis and that it was going directly to the President. On
12
December 14, 2004, I provided output to Haraldsen and Paul Allen from USSOCOM with target
13
coordinates and the date of December 24th, 2004 - Christmas Eve - for a specific location in the
14
middle of one of our military bases in Mosul, Iraq. I then picked up repeated patterns for that
15
16
location, so on December 20, 2004, I called my contact directly in Iraq and warned him of an
17
impending attack at that location. I repeatedly stressed to Haraldsen that I thought an attack was
18
imminent. On December 24, 2004, a suicide bomber detonated a device on the base killing over 20
19
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
21
22
Bath. At one time, he mentioned that One Hundred Million Dollars had already been approved and
23
that he and Bath were working with Trepp. Later, in mid 2005, I informed him that I did not trust
24
Trepp, that the technology was mine, that the Government needed to deal with me, not Trepp, and
25
that I wanted to participate in any discussions. Haraldsen said he would take it up with the right
26
people inside the Air Force.
27
28
23.
Independent Corroboration of the Al Jazeera Decoding. In early 2005, the Air Force
-14-

contracted with an independent consulting contractor who verified that there was, in fact,
1
2
embedded patterns inside the al Jazeera signals, but that the consultant was unable to decode the
encryptions. Some months later, Haraldsen informed me that the buy out would go forward and
3
4
5
that I would participate.

24.
The Eagle Vision Contract, James Gibbons, and LLH & Associates. In early 2005,
James Gibbons, working with General Bath procured a military contract, the only contract
referenced in eTreppids Trade Secret law suit against me, but merely one of many SAP contracts I
worked on with my technology. The project was named Eagle Vision and involved the
9
10
compression of digital satellite streams. LLH & Associates was the primary contractor on this
11
contract, which sub-contracted the work to eTreppid. The contract was a Top Secret contract. In
12
order to prove my exclusive ownership of the technology involved in Eagle Vision and differentiate
13
it from any of the technology on CD No. 1," I will require the depositions of all individuals
14
involved in this project, together with all of the documentation. I believe that Trepp probably
15
16
identified this sole SAP contract in his Complaint without specifically identifying as such, but as an
17
LLH contract because during this time frame Trepp was actively using other eTreppid employees
18
to attempt to gain access to my codes through reverse engineering and our conflict was rapidly
19
20
intensifying. The national security concerns expressed in the Negroponte declaration apply to Eagle
Vision.
21
22
25.
Detecting and Tracking Submarines. In mid 2005, I was approached by Michael
23
Carter from the Naval Research Center. He provide me several high altitude satellite photographs of
24
the ocean and asked if I could detect any anomalies with my ODS. The area covered
25
approximately 100 square miles of ocean. I detected two objects in the photographs and reported
26
them to Carter and to Paul Salvatori who reported them to other Navy officials. Carter and Salvatori
27
28
told me that this was the first time software technology had detected a submarine under water.
-15-

They then told me that the Navy would set up a series of tests and that the most difficult test would
1
2
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
3
4
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
9
10
ODS, which, of course, I had always protected from everyone. When I refused to give Trepp the
11
codes, he began to threaten me with using his political influence with Gibbons to bury me; and
12
to use his connections to the Bonnano family, as hereinafter described. A detailed description of
13
my conflict with Trepp is contained in my answers to Trepps interrogatories, attached to my
14
opposition to the motion for a protective order.
15
16
26.
In order to prove my exclusive ownership, possession, custody and control of my
17
technology used with the CIA, the Air force, the Navy and USSOCOM, and the preservation of the
18
secrecy of the technology from Trepp, the Government and all eTreppid employees, and in order to
19
20
defend against Trepps spurious Trade Secret claims requiring preservation of the secrecy of the
trade secret, by me alone, I will have to discover all of the relevant documents, and depose all of
21
22
the involved individuals from the CIA, the Air Force, USSOCOM, and the Navy relating to the use
23
and application of my technology as recited above. These include but are not limited to: Paul
24
Haraldsen, Edward Charbonneau, Sid Smith, Johann Kim, Peter Wiedemann, all individuals listed
25
on the list given to me by Ed Charbonneau from the CIA, and all of my contacts in Iraq and in the
26
US relating to the London, Madrid and the Iraq bombings, James Gibbons, Ronald Bath, individuals
27
28
inside the Air Force involved with Bath and Gibbons and all others inside the Government who
-16-

tried to steal my technology at the behest of Trepp, Bath, Haraldsen and Gibbons. I will require the
1
2
regular briefings given to the President in order to determine how my technology was described
and characterized, how it was used and applied, and to calculate all my damages resulting from the
3
4
failure of the Government to pay me royalties knowing it belonged to me.

The DoJs Use of the Big Safari Contract to Permit Discovery is a Ruse.
5
6
7
8
27.
The DoJ and Ms. Wells in their motion for a protective order, refer to their agreement
to allow discovery in connection with the Big Safari contract. This is just a ruse. That contract and
the discovery they plainly intend to allow relates to the purchase of air conditioners for the blade
9
10
servers brought in by the FBI. That contract has no national security implications and none relating
11
to the ownership and possession of my technology. Referencing it as an example of how and why
12
discovery can proceed in these matters is disingenuous in the extreme.
13
14
Sealed Search Warrant Matters Relevant to National Security Issues

28.
Each and every relevant and material fact in Agent Wests affidavit filed in Court to
15
16
obtain a search warrant to raid my home and storage are materially false either by intentional
17
deletion, omission, mis-statement, or outright fabrication. The local Reno FBI raided my home on
18
the pretext that I had unlawfully taken classified information which posed a threat to our national
19
20
security. This was just a bold-faced fabrication to justify the theft of the technology I have described
herein. Paul Haraldsen knew that the so-called palm trees tapes - the pretext for the raid - were
21
22
neither classified or taken by me. The FBI, Haraldsen, and Trepp all knew that I had only
23
conveyed to eTreppid - the Company I own with Trepp, and now others, (that Trepp has
24
mysteriously and questionably brought in, including Michael Milken), the data compression
25
technology contained on CD No. 1". Yet West deleted this phrase from his affidavit, then omitted
26
the very next paragraph reciting that none of my other technologies were conveyed. Then he
27
28
explicitly deleted the phrase in eTreppids Operating Agreement proving that I was not subject to a
-17-

non-compete agreement and stated in his affidavit that I was. Then he swore under oath that I was
1
2
an employee from 2000 to November, 2001 when I assigned the patents he lists - a complete
falsehood; and he recites that Venables had access to my source codes when Venables had admitted
3
4
under oath three weeks before that he didnt. Now, the Government is asserting the state secrets
privilege in the civil cases after admitting in the criminal matter that no classified information was
stored at eTreppid and thus, I was not in possession of any. Yet, in these civil cases it is
representing to the Court that information involved in these cases involves an exceptionally grave
danger to the national security of the United States. I do not believe that the upper levels of our
9
10
Government, including John Negroponte, have been fully advised of the machinations and illegal
11
conduct of Trepp and the local FBI, or of the issues involved in these matters, and that the local
12
Nevada Government authorities aided my home because of the political influence of Trepp.
13
Perhaps, this explains the apparent discrepancy between the Negroponte public declaration and
14
the DoJs motion for a protective order. I raise these search matter issues herein as an explanation for
15
16
17
18
19
20
the discrepancy. I have potential claims arising out of the misconduct of the local Nevada officials.
29.
Agent West falsely led the Court issuing the search warrants to believe that there was a
non-compete agreement then in existence preventing me from using my source codes in

competition with eTreppid, knowingly deleting the explicit phrase stating that there was no noncompete agreement. Again, this conduct was material and intentional to steal my technology.
21
22
30.
I have never received any form of notice whatsoever from any Governmental agency
23
that my Top Secret SIC security clearance has been suspended or revoked. My security clearance
24
can only be revoked by the appropriate Governmental agency. Yet, Agent West falsely stated in his
25
search affidavit that my clearance had been suspended and that eTreppid possessed a clearance to
26
store classified information. These compounded falsehoods were manufactured by Trepp, Patty
27
28
Gray, Sloan Venables and West in order to raid my home on the false allegation that I unlawfully
-18-

retained classified information. After being challenged with my Rule 41 (g) Motion, as stated
1
2
above, the Government then admitted that there was no classified information taken by me or in
the possession of eTreppid. In the event these cases proceed, I will continue to make decisions and
3
4
5
6
7
8
utilize the information referenced in paragraph 11 of the Negroponte declaration based on my

possession of a Top Secret SIC security clearance.
31.
I view the search warrant lies and illegal conduct by my Government to be a result of
the local political connections between Trepp, James Gibbons, Daniel Bogden, and Ronald Bath,
but I do not know how far this corruption rises inside our Government. I have reason to believe that
9
10
certain high level Government officials, including, the President, Vice-President, Mr. Negroponte
11
and others have not been influenced by the political power of Trepp; but I also have reason to
12
believe that some Air Force officials have been influenced by Ronald Bath, and that they have
13
influenced others in the DoJ.
14
32.
Warren Trepp is an extremely powerful and connected individual in Nevada due to
15
16
his large political contributions. I have attended functions, a cruise, dinners, etc with Trepp and
17
James Gibbons. I have observed Trepp, once heavily intoxicated on a cruise, give Gibbons casino
18
chips and cash of approximately $100,000.00 Dollars. I have heard them discuss funneling
19
20
money in $10,000 dollar increments to Gibbons thru Trepps various entities. I have heard Gibbons
say words to the effect that given Trepps questionable background and the source of his
21
22
23
24
25
donations, the less people identify Trepp as one of his donors the better.
33.
Trepp is also a long term close associate of the Bonanno Family of the New Jersey mob
family bearing that name - dating back to at least Trepps Drexel days when Trepp and Michael
Milken, who went to prison in connection with his junk bond scams, invested money for the
26
Bonannos. Trepp threatened me with the Bonannos and I have fears for my life because of that
27
28
association. The Bonannos have close ties to Jack Abramoff, the Republican fund raiser, as does
-19-

Warren Trepp.
1
2
34.
I have participated in numerous meetings with Air Force General Ronald Bath, Trepps
consultant and Trepp. Gibbons and Bath, both Air Force and Nevada Air National Guard pilots
3
4
are the basis for Trepps political influence in Nevada and within the Air Force. In November, 2005,
in one of my many fights with Trepp over licensing my technology used in the special Government
contracts, Trepp threatened to bury me with his political influence over Bath and Gibbons. I
believe the FBI/Air Force raid on my home and property was the result of that influence to steal my
technology for Trepp. Gibbons has admitted that he initiated the criminal investigation against me.
9
Claims I Intend to Bring Not Yet Filed
10
11
35.
The fact that Trepp and Gibbons improperly influenced the FBI to raid my home and
12
that they have continued to conduct surveillance on me, including what I believe to be illegal
13
physical and electronic surveillance, including eavesdropping and wiretapping, leads me to believe
14
that they have used their secret surveillance program on AT&T customers to intercept my phone
15
16
records. I have been an AT&T customer. If this litigation is to proceed, I will intervene in the case of
17
Hepting v AT&T as a Plaintiff against AT&T and the Government. I will also bring claims similar to
18
those brought in the AT&T case in this Court. In that action, I understand that the Government
19
20
intervened and sought to dismiss the case based on the state secrets privilege.
36.
I also intend to bring claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act; and I intend to file
21
22
23
24
25
claims against various state and federal officers and employees in connection with the matters set
forth herein.
37.
At this point, given the unconstitutional raid on my home, which had a severely
damaging effect on my wife of 32 years and three children, I do not trust the State of Nevada, I do
26
not trust the US Government or any of its branches, agencies, divisions or departments. I am certain
27
28
that Gibbons, Bath, Haraldsen and others have used their political influence to corrupt the system;
-20-

but I am hopeful that the Judges hearing this matter will follow the law and apply the law to the facts
1
2
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of Nevada
3
4
5
that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 30th day of October, 2006 in Seattle,
Washington..
6
7
________________________________
Dennis Montgomery
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-
Exhibit 5
Contact Us Submissions - New Item

Page 2 of 2
Fax: (305) 536-5058
Email: Scott.Nirk@sba.gov
DoD Guide for Small Businesses: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/index.shtml
Staff Contacts
J1 Manpower: 305-437-1117
J2 Intelligence: 305-437-3720
J3 Operations: 305-437-3331
J4 Logistics: 305-437-1400
J5 Strategy, Policy, and Plans: 305-437-1507
J6 Communicat on Systems: 305-437-1604
J7 Theater Engagement: 305-437-1588
J8 Resources & Assessments: 305-437-3829
J9 Partnering: 305-437-1019
Chief of Staff / Secretary of the Joint Staff: 305-437-1006
Command Chaplain: 305-437-3429
Command Surgeon: 305-437-1327
Congressional Affairs: 305-437-1020
Headquarters Commandant: 305-437-3102
Judge Advocate: 305-437-1304
Protocol: 305-437-1139
Reserve Affairs: 305-437-2719
| U.S. Army South| U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet| 12th Air Force and Air Forces Southern| U S. Marine Corps Forces, South| Special Operations
Command South| Joint Task Force Guantanamo| Joint Interagency Task Force South| Joint Task Force Bravo| Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation| William
J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies| Naval Small Craft Instruction & Technical Training School| Inter American Air Forces Academy
ABOUT
FOIA
MISSIONS
WORK WITH SOUTHCOM
Visiting SOUTHCOM
FOIA Main
Building Partner Capacity
Work with SOUTHCOM Main
SOUTHCOM Component Commands & Units
FOIA Contact
Contingency Response
Employment
Leadership/Staff
File FOIA Request
Detainee Operations
SOUTHCOM Operational Contract Support
History
Freedom of Information Act
Countering Transnational Organized Crime
Public / Private Cooperation
Area of Responsibility
FOIA Reading Room
Missions Main
About Main
| DoD OPEN GOV| FAQ| DEFENSE.GOV| ACCESSIBILITY/SECTION 508| USA.GOV| NO FEAR ACT| EXTERNAL LINK DISCLAIMER| PRIVACY & SECURITY
http://www.southcom.mil/Lists/Contact%20Us%20Submissions/Item/newifs.aspx?List=ffe... 4/27/2015
Exhibit 6
U.S. Central Command | Contact Us

Page 1 of 2
Home | Contact Us
Contact Us
U.S. Central Command
Address:
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, FL
33621-5101
USA
MacDill AFB Base Operator
(813) 828-1110
MacDill AFB Base Locator:
(813) 828-2444
Central Command Communications Integration Public Affairs (CCCI PA)
For Public Affairs
(813) 529-0214
DSN: (312) 529-0214
For Media Queries
(813) 529-0220
(813) 529-0213
After hours: (813) 966-8937
For Community Relations Questions
(813) 529-0235
(813) 529-0218
CENTCOM Reserve Affairs
Army: (813) 529-1074
Air Force: (813) 529-1004
Marine Corps: (813) 529-1088
Navy: (813) 529-1098
CENTCOM Inspector General
(813) 529-0275
MacDill AFB Public Affairs
(813) 828-2215
http://www.centcom.mil/en/contact-us-en
4/27/2015
U.S. Central Command | Contact Us

Page 2 of 2
ISAF Public Affairs

ISAF HQ Public Affairs Office in Kabul
pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int
+93 (0) 700 13 - 2114 / 2928 / 2482
ISAF Joint Command Public Affairs Office
ijc.media@afghan.swa.army.mil
jcmediaopsnu@apod-kaia.isaf.nato.int
+93 (0) 799 51 3999 (Wait For Voice Prompt) 688-4441/4447
+93 (0) 701 13 2000 (Wait For Voice Prompt) 318-449-9244/9153/9154
NATO Public Information Office
Media Operations Center
NATO Headquarters
Blvd Leopold III
1110 Brussels, Belgium
moc.web@hq.nato.int
U.S. Department of Defense
Public Affairs
703-697-5131
http://www.centcom.mil/en/contact-us-en
4/27/2015
Exhibit 7
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
james risen
Sectec Astronomy
Re: Agency
Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:44:59 PM
If you give us the Brennan emails, we will write a story

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Sectec Astronomy <theagencyinsider@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hard to imagine that you guys would ever report on anything negative regarding
Obama?
DM made it clear who was at the building, and why they were all there. There is a
reason the CIA and NSA were there, you must know that.
Do you really think the government invoked the State Secrets Priviledge from beiing
embarrassed or conned? Negroponte in his in camera declaration, if ever released,
was spell it all of out.
They governemnt never wanted information to come out regarding the other
work. The program started out spying on terrorist, and under Obama quickly moved
to spying on Americans!! A program which was started by Brennan in 2003 and
continues to this day. This technology is being used today to spy on Americans,
I don't see you ever publishing that information?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:07:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Agency
From: jrisen31@gmail.com
To: theagencyinsider@hotmail.com
Hi. As you recall, we had a very long phone conversation recently where we
discussed how it would be good to report on many of the things that we didn't
report on previously. I would like to include all of the points that you have raised in
my book, and also to write about many of these issues in the newspaper. For the
newspaper, I am particularly interested in the issue of Brennan, and his emails and
related documents, which you said when we last talked that you might be willing to
share with me. So I am open to discussing everything with you.
Jim
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Sectec Astronomy
<theagencyinsider@hotmail.com> wrote:
You didn't answer my question:
You reported on FBI documents, as if they were accurate, when that the
Judge tossed out all of the claims in their report. The FBI refused to
produce any of the people in their report for examination by the court.
That include Daniel Bogden, who was reinstated by Obama as the US
Attorney for Nevada.
Why did you not mention in your story Judge Cooke scathing report
against the Warren Trepp, FBI, and other government officials? Judge
Cooke reported that DM had his 4th admendment constituional rights
violated?
How can I ever trust that you will report accurate information when your
prior story was based on information provided to you by Mike Flynn my
ex attorney?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:21:02 -0400

Subject: Re: Agency
I have tried West and Venables. I am writing a chapter in my book
about all this largely because we weren't able to tell much of the story
in the paper. I would like your input, and your voice in the chapter.
DM doesn't need another hachet job on him. Have you
tried Agent West or Sloan Venables?
You reported on FBI documents, as if they were accurate,
when that the Judge tossed out all of the claims in their
report. The FBI refused to produce any of the people in
their report for examination by the court. That include
Daniel Bogden, who was reinstated by Obama as the US
Attorney for Nevada.
Why did you not mention in your story Judge Cooke
scathing report against the Warren Trepp, FBI, and other
government officials? Judge Cooke reported that DM had
his 4th admendment constituional rights violated?
This is so much you guys missed.
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:54:31 -0400

Subject: Re: Agency
Well, I would like to write more about him and everyone
else involved in my book now.

His role? He is the CEO of eTreppid. He got all
of the money. Why was he not in your story?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:36:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Agency
I have tried to talk to Warren Trepp. If you
have any information about his role, I would
like to talk to you about it.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Sectec
Astronomy <theagencyinsider@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why have you not chased the
money, and contacted Warren
Trepp who kept all of the money?
I don't get that?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:41:01 0400
Subject: Re: Agency
Both. We discussed how you have
information that would be very
good for a story about his
involvement.
But I also want to talk to you more
generally about your experiences
and work during the war on terror.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:55 AM,
Sectec Astronomy
<theagencyinsider@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Is talking to me or
Brennan emails what
your after?
What other information
are you after?

Date: Wed, 31 Oct
2012 23:25:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Agency
From:
jrisen31@gmail.com
To:
theagencyinsider@hotmail.com
I thought what we
discussed before was
really interesting, and I
would like to continue
our discussion. As I
mentioned, I am
writing about it in my
book, and I would like
to talk to you for
that.But I would also
like to talk about what
you said about
Brennan and the White
House.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012
at 7:06 PM, Sectec
Astronomy
<theagencyinsider@hotmail.com
> wrote:
Regarding?
So DM
get attack
in another
article?
Date: Wed,
31 Oct
2012
16:47:58 0400
Subject:
Re:
Agency
From:
jrisen31@gmail.com
To:

Hi. Can we
talk?
Jim Risen
On Fri, Oct
5, 2012 at
6:51 PM,
Sectec
Astronomy
> wrote:
I
guess
you
can
investigate
what
I
disclosed
and
then
decide.
Date:
Fri,
5
Oct
2012
18:47:34
0400
Subject:
Re:
Agency
From:
jrisen31@gmail.com
To:
As
I
said
on
the
phone,
I

protect
my
sources.
I
will
never
divulge
the
identify
of
my
sources
in
a
leak
investigation.
But
I
also
have
to
know
that
the
source
is
telling
me
the
truth.
Jim
On
Fri,
Oct
5,
2012
at
5:51
PM,
Sectec
Astronomy
>
wrote:
Before
documents
are
sent,

you
agree
that
you
will
protect
Dennis
Montgomery
as
a
protected
source.
If
the
US
Government
attacks
Dennis
Montgomery
you,
and
your
organization
will
do
everything
possible
to protect
and
defend
Dennis
Montgomery.
Agreed.
Date:
Fri,
5
Oct
2012
17:32:30
0400
Subject:
Re:
Agency
From:
jrisen31@gmail.com

To:
got
it,
thanks
Jim
Risen
On
Fri,
Oct
5,
2012
at
5:11
PM,
Sectec
Astronomy
>
wrote:
This
is
my
email
address...
Exhibit 8
SOCOM & CIA

Visit 03/20/12
Location:
75180 Mediterranean
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Chris Pipes SOCOM
Exhibit 9
Exhibit M

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES RISEN, ET AL.,

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF DENNIS MONTGOMERY, IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
CHALLENGING FLORIDA JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, Dennis Montgomery, hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the following is true and correct:
1) I am over the age of 18 years old and I make this affidavit on personal knowledge and
belief. I am mentally and legally competent to make this affidavit sworn under oath,
despite having suffered a brain aneurism and serious related health issues. See
Exhibits 9, 10, 11, attached to this affidavit.
2) Reporter James Risen of The New York Times and publisher Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company published a book Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and
Endless War in October 2014 (hereafter the Book).
3) In Chapter 2 of the Defendants Book, James Risen and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company lie about me and my work and libel me extensively.
4) Chapter 2 involves me and James Risen focuses almost exclusively on defaming me
alone to sell copies of the Book in marketing interviews. Having read the book, I am
its centerpiece, that is, Defendants punching boy to sell books. Risen conspicuously
ignores the many other events and incidents in the Book and focuses almost
exclusively on me when promoting his book for sales in Florida and elsewhere.
5) Whereas, the Defendants, especially Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company, have great resources and no doubt have errors and omissions insurance
to finance their legal defense, I have no money or resources at all. I lost my house in
foreclosure. The Defendants will be able to afford to litigate the claims in Florida.
6) My finances, employment, career and business opportunities have been severely
devastated and destroyed by the false and misleading statements made by the
Defendants, contributing to the loss of my previous house in foreclosure and driving
me into poverty just at the time I have also been diagnosed with serious medical
problems.
7) The Defendants published defamatory and false and misleading statements which are
not opinion or hyperbole and are not fair reporting of their sources or public records.
The defamation is specifically false and misleading in factually verifiable terms,
including in that:
a. Defendants published defamatory material and statements from confidential
government sources in the intelligence and military communities. The false
and misleading statements did not result from fair reporting of previously
published material. They admit this on page ix of the Book stating, Many
people have criticized the use of anonymous sources. Yet all reporters know
that the very best stories the most important, the most sensitive rely on
them. This book would not be possible without the cooperation of may current
and former government officials and other individuals who were willing to
discuss sensitive matters only on the condition of anonymity. Indeed, this is a
big selling point of Defendants book. It publishes new information, however
defamatory, that had not been accessible or published before. This is why the
Book is a bestseller in Florida and elsewhere, particularly given that Florida is
at the center of U.S. Government counterterrorism military and intelligence
operations, as I testify to below.
b. The Defendants actually know that their U.S. Government sources are the
ones who will bear the public blame for their own poor decisions if they do
not shift the blame implausibly to me with the Defendants concerted help.
c. Defendant James Risen intentionally omitted several important facts while
fabricating defamatory statements and stories about me.
d. The Defendants actually knew that Warren Trepp received most of the money,
yet accuse me of fraud to obtain money while excusing politically-connected
Warren Trepp who took and kept the money and controlled the company.
e. The Defendants falsely and misleadingly state that I fabricated intelligence to
make money. In fact, eTreppid was paid for software work and analysis, not
contingent upon results or conditional upon finding any terrorist threats. Our
work was complete and payment due merely for doing the analysis the CIA
and other Government officials asked us to do.
f. My software and technology did work, does work, and is still being used
successfully by the U.S. Government today.
g. The Defendants actually know that Warren Trepp has never paid back any of
the $30 million that eTreppid received from the U.S. Government nor offered
to pay any of it back nor has the U.S. Government asked for any of the money
back. Therefore, James Risen actually knows that his defamation of me is
false and misleading. If eTreppid received $30 million from the U.S.
Government for the use of my software and technology that was a purported
fraud or a hoax, eTreppid would have to pay the money back to the U.S.
Government. But the U.S. Government knows that my software and
technology actually worked and works and is valuable, which is why eTreppid
does not have to pay any of the $30 million back.
h. In fact, the Defendants ignore and intentionally omit my ten (10) patent
applications, which attest to and show my expertise.
i. The U.S. Government independently tested and verified the results of my
software and technology and did not rely upon my word alone. The U.S.
Government officials sought me and my technology out.
j. The data detected by my software and technology did predict actual terrorist
incidents and/or meetings in advance.
k. I could not have fabricated intelligence from my work, as Defendants defame
me, without being certain that no one else would independently verify my
work in any number of other ways available to the CIA, NSA, and military.
l. I and the companies I worked with had equal or better opportunities to provide
my services to private sector companies, and had no need to work for the U.S.
Government to make the same amount of money or less.
m. I was motivated by patriotism, not greed, in turning down equivalent
opportunities to provide services to the private sector to answer requests for

help in the war on terror by the U.S. Government.
n. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) wanted experts to analyze Al Qaeda
videos.
o. It was the CIA who proposed to eTreppid that we would analyze Al Qaeda
videos. The defamation of me states that I fraudulently sold the CIA and U.S.
Government on a fantasy using fabricated intelligence. In fact, the CIA and
the U.S. Government approached us with what they wanted analyzed.
p. The Defendants actually knew that Warren Trepp closed the sales of
contracts by persuading the U.S. Government, yet falsely accuse me of selling
a fantasy of fabricated intelligence to the U.S. Government, while excusing
Trepp, as a fraudulent scheme to obtain money.
q. Defendants falsely state that I persuaded the President George W. Bush to
ban international passenger aircraft from entering U.S. airspace and nearly
shoot down passenger aircraft. However, I never provided any interpretation
of what the hidden data we uncovered meant. We merely provided the
uncovered data to the U.S. Government experts for their interpretation. Even
when pressed, I refused to offer any national security interpretation of the
data.
r. As obvious from the records and documents that the Defendants rely upon, the
Defendants so-called sources Michael Flynn, Tim Blixseth, and Warren
Trepp went to extraordinary and expensive legal and extra-legal (self help)
efforts to furiously get ownership of my work as being extremely valuable,
while simultaneously stating that my work had no value.

s. Michael Flynn, Tim Blixseth, and Warren Trepp were attempting to invoke
the fraud exception to bankruptcy laws to invalidate my bankruptcy, and
therefore the Defendants knew that they had motives to fabricate or embellish
their false statements against me.
t. The public records that the Defendants claim to be relying upon though
voluminous overwhelmingly contradict the Defendants defamation of me.
u. On September 28, 1998, I and Warren Trepp co-founded eTreppid
Technologies (eTreppid) based on a Contribution Agreement of that date
in which we agreed to own the LLC in equal 50% shares. Trepp put up money
and I conveyed his software compression technology contained on CD No.
1 to eTreppid. The business plan of eTreppid and the application of the
compression technology were to compress VHS videotapes used for
surveillance in casinos for archiving and more efficient storage. Over the
preceding 20 years I developed and copyrighted other types of software
technology, including but not limited to Object Detection Software which is
a crucial component of, among other things, colorizing black and white
movies. In order for the computer to add color, it must be able to recognize
individual objects in the movie which are moving in three dimensions, (that is
moving toward or away from the camera and changing in apparent size),
aspect angle, orientation, etc. This was not conveyed to eTreppid and which,
per the terms of the Contribution Agreement, was expressly excluded.
Shortly after the formation of eTreppid, I offered to sell one part of his
Object Detection System (ODS) software to Warren Trepp for the sum of
$10 million dollars, which Trepp rejected.
v. As reflected in a form SF-95 Attachment A prepared by me with my then
attorney Michael Flynn for presentation to the Government, Beginning on or
about November 2002, on behalf of the US Air Force, Montgomery began
work on military applications of his technology at Eglin Air Force base [in
Florida] to demonstrate the application of his technologies in the war on
terror.
w. Defendants make the technically absurd and false statement that The French
company said that there were simply not enough pixels in the broadcasts to
contain hidden bar codes or unseen numbers, only by falsely misrepresenting
that the data was contained only in the crawl at the bottom of the screen.
This falsified and misleading misdirection and deception to focus only on the
crawl is deceptive. It is patently unbelievable, which Defendant Risen should
have known as an expert in national security, that a television signal could not
contain such simple data as latitude and longitude coordinates, consisting of
only six numbers and two letters (East or West longitude, North or South
latitude).
8) I am a citizen of the State of Florida, with a residence in an apartment community in
Miami, Florida. I have a Florida telephone number in this district. I am reporting my
address and Miami-Dade, Florida phone number under seal.
9) I am registered to vote in Florida, as shown in Exhibit 1, attached to this affidavit. I
previously had a temporary address while settling on the permanent address that I
have now. I have updated my voter registration to reflect my current Miami address.
10) I have reviewed the affidavit of defense counsel Laura Handman attached to the
Defendants motion stating that I had not registered to vote in Florida. The
Defendants affidavit is false. I am registered to vote in the State of Florida, and am
now updating my voter registration with my new address. I was registered to vote in
Florida when Ms. Handman signed her affidavit. She misled this Court.
11) I found on the website of the publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, that Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company maintains permanent and general offices in
Orlando, Florida at 9400 Southpark Center Loop, Orlando, Florida 32819. Exhibit 2,
attached to this affidavit, which I downloaded from the Defendant publishers website
at http://www.hmhco.com/about-hmh/our-offices. These are statements made by the
Defendants about themselves.
12) On the website of the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations, I found
that Defendant Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company is registered to do business in
Florida through the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. Exhibit 3,
attached to this affidavit, which I downloaded from the Florida Department of States
website.
13) As shown in those Florida Government documents, in 2008 Defendant changed its
name from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt to Houghton Mifflin Publishing
Company. Id. These are statements made by Defendants about themselves.
14) My research of the publisher also uncovered that Defendants rely significantly upon
sales in the Southeast of the United States through a company Amazon for very
substantial sales over the internet. Amazons regional distribution centers or
Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 10 of

83
fulfillment centers are located in Ruskin, Florida in Hillsborough County and

Lakeland, Florida, in Polk County. See Exhibit 4, attached to this affidavit.
15) Much of the defamation which my lawsuit contests is contained within the physical
product physically shipped into Florida for sale, the Book written by James Risen and
published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
16) In 2012, Edra Blixseth brought Chris Pipes, from the U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) from MacDill Air Force Base in Florida to our Palm Desert
offices. SOCOM was interested in pursuing object tracking, mass surveillance, and
research on cloaking technologies. Chris Pipes met at our facility, with a
representative of the CIA. While he was in our building, Chris Pipes then received a
telephone call from SOCOM in Florida, and then told us that SOCOM could not
pursue the technology because of what was written about me in the news media.
Exhibit 18, attached to this affidavit.
17) SOCOM is the Unified Combatant Command charged with overseeing the various
Special Operations Component Commands of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine
Corps of the United States Armed Forces. The command is part of the Department of
Defense and is the only Unified Combatant Command legislated into being by the
U.S. Congress. SOCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa,
Florida. See, Exhibit 12, attached to this affidavit.
18) U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is a theatre-level Unified Combatant
Command of the U.S. Department of Defense, established in 1983. CENTCOM Area
of Responsibility includes countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central
Asia, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. CENTCOM has been the main American

83
presence in many military and intelligence operations. It is headquartered in Tampa,

Florida. See, Exhibit 12, attached to this affidavit.
19) The Defendant author James Risen actually knew or should have known that most of
my work was with U.S. Government organizations in Florida and the contracting
offices for my work are in Florida. A competent Pulitzer Price winning New York
Times reporter who wrote the Book over a four-year period from 2011 through 2014
would have reviewed the Wall Street Journal article from November 1, 2006,
attached, which includes the explanation:
Source of Secret Funds
One source of secret funds for eTreppid and other companies
is the Special Operations Command. Based in Tampa, Fla., the
command fields special-operations military and intelligence
forces around the globe and is at the forefront of the fight in
Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also been rocked by a criminal
investigation of a former contracting officer. The investigation
is continuing, according to a spokesman for the U.S. attorney
in Tampa.
In a separate inquiry, Pentagon investigators last year found
evidence that the command kept special accounts for "unrequested
congressional plus-ups," or earmarks. The plus-ups were used to
reward lawmakers with projects in their districts, according to
declassified investigators' notes reviewed by The Wall Street
Journal. The Pentagon's inspector general closed the inquiry after
finding that the accounts weren't illegal.
Mr. Trepp said eTreppid won classified work on its merits and
already had a number of government contracts before Mr. Gibbons
starting making introductions on the company's behalf. Mr.
Gibbons's campaign manager, Robert Uithoven, said the
congressman has been a strong supporter of new defense
technology, particularly after 9/11. But he said there was "no quid
pro quo whatsoever" for contributions from contractors. And while
some funding was secret, "it was because of the sensitive nature of
the work," Mr. Uithoven said, not to avoid public scrutiny.
10

83
For Mr. Trepp, eTreppid's success at winning multimillion-dollar

federal contracts marks a comeback from his Drexel days. He sat at
Mr. Milken's right arm on the firm's famous X-shaped trading desk
in Beverly Hills, sometimes trading as much as $2 billion in
securities a day. Federal regulators filed a civil securities-fraud
claim against him in 1995, and a Securities and Exchange
Commission administrative judge found that his violations had
been "egregious, recurring and intentional." But she dismissed the
proceeding against him, noting that the allegations were old and he
had left the securities business years earlier. (Emphasis added).
20) This article and dozens of others, as well as court documents, caused Risen to know
or he should have known upon reasonable inquiry over four years that Warren Trepp
was furiously trying to take ownership of my software and technology, which directly
calls into question his self-serving false statements that the software and technology
he was trying to acquire rights to was worthless. The same article also reports:
Mr. Gibbons also got other, unreported gifts of cash and casino
chips from Mr. Trepp, according to sworn testimony in a civil
lawsuit brought by a former executive at eTreppid, Dennis
Montgomery. The suit, filed in February in federal court in Reno,
involves a dispute between Messrs. Trepp and Montgomery over
the rights to certain software code . . .
The suit has raised alarms in Washington because of concern that
national secrets will be revealed if it goes to trial. For example, one
of the entities that funded eTreppid is code-named Big Safari and
is a classified program, documents in the case show. The nation's
top intelligence official, John D. Negroponte, recently filed a
statement with the court seeking to seal the case. He wrote that
after personally reviewing the matter, he has concluded that
disclosure of some information connected with the case could do
"exceptionally grave damage" to national security.
21) My greatest opportunities for employment, business, and/or an income are at either
Macdill Air Base near Tampa, Florida and Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton
Beach, Florida, which is at the center of U.S. Government intelligence and
counterterrorism operations. See Exhibit 12, attached to this affidavit.
11

83
22) As a result, I have settled in Florida not just for professional reasons but also because
of my failing health and desire to enjoy Florida at this stage in my life. Florida has no
personal income tax as well as a Homestead exception should I buy a home. Florida is
a great place to live.
23) In 2011, I incorporated a business with a partner in Florida to contract with the
military and U.S. Government at bases in Florida to continue the same type of
services and software and technological work that I had performed under eTreppid
and BLXWARE. This business was named Alex James LLC, which I incorporated
through the Legal Zoom service company. I set up the articles of incorporation,
paid for and set up this company. Judy Crowhurst is the woman I chose to run it.
24) Exhibit 5, attached to this affidavit, presents the papers I processed through the
Legal Zoom company and my payment information paying for the company in
Florida in 2011.
25) As an expert in national security issues, Defendant James Risen knows that the war in
Afghanistan was and is run largely from Florida electronically and by drone
controllers located in Florida. For instance, following September 11, 2001, General
Tommy Franks rarely set foot in Afghanistan and fought the war from U.S. Air Force
Bases in Florida, including from SOCOM and CENTCOM. This explains my work
with SOCOM and CENTOM in large part and why it continued there.
26) Defendant James Risen also knows that the U.S. military leadership and personnel are
concentrated mainly in Florida. Because U.S. military servicemen can choose their
state of residence despite being deployed elsewhere, Floridas lack of an income tax
12

83
makes Florida a very attractive State for U.S. servicemen, often poorly paid. As a
result, most of the nations top military leaders, current and former servicemen, chose
Florida as their residency.
27) Defendant Risen knew in publishing the Book that Florida is an enormous market as
the nations now third largest State, including Floridas significant military and
intelligence and counterterrorism personnel, with many retirees (including retired
U.S. Government employees in the military and intelligence fields) with more time to
read books than the average American. For instance, former Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfield now lives in Florida, as well as former Chairman of the U.S.
Senate Intelligence Committee and CIA Director Porter Goss, who lives in Miami.
28) The team on which I worked had contracts directly with the intelligence agencies at
the military bases in Florida. I have video showing the work. The contracting
officers are out of those military bases, many of which are classified. I met and
worked with CIA officials in Florida at various military bases. However, I cannot
identify here the exact units stationed at those bases, which is classified information.
29) We at eTreppid and later BLXWARE did most of our work with units stationed at
MacDill Air Force Base and Eglin Air Force Base, whose identity is secret. See
February 14, 2004, Order for Supplies or Services attached, with the Ship To
address of UQ USSOCOM/SOAL-SP (Mohr), 7701 Tampa Point Boulevard, MacDill
Air Force Base, Florida 33621.
30) Most of the payments for our work, the work I did for eTreppid and later
BLXWARE, came out of the CIA offices in Florida and SOCOM, the U.S. Special
13

83
Operations Command of the U.S. military at Macdill Air Force Base, Florida.
31) SOCOM of the U.S. military is located at 7701 Tampa Point Boulevard, MacDill Air
Force Base, Florida. See Exhibit 6, attached to this affidavit.
32) CENTCOM of the U.S. military is located at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa,
Florida. See Exhibit 7, attached to this affidavit.
33) Relating to my work conducting surveillance of international communications, major
fiber optics cables run from Florida across the ocean, which is partly why my work
opportunities for my experience and capabilities are in Florida.
34) I intend to call witnesses who can testify that my defamed software and technology
does indeed work and is not a hoax. These witnesses are personnel based at Macdill
Air Base near Tampa, Florida and at Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton Beach,
Florida, where I did a lot of his work. The organizational units housed at Macdill and
Eglin used my software, technology, and work extensively during the time period
addressed by Defendants defamation of me. Those witnesses will testify and thus
help me prove that the defamatory statements about me are indeed false and
misleading.
35) Relevant officials at Macdill and Eglin (and all facilities that my work has provided
services to anywhere) make their own contracting decisions and do not rely upon
contracting offices in Washington, D.C., nor even at the CIA in Langley, Virginia, the
Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, or the NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland.
36) Many of the witnesses in this case, with whom I have worked, are largely in Florida,
including, but not limited to:
Goss, Porter, former Director of CIA, now in Miami, Florida
14

83
Johns, Ken, Macdill AFB, Florida

Lyons, XXXXX, Macdill AFB, Florida
Macbeth, W. Rhys, Eglin AFB, Florida
Nazelrod, Craig, Eglin AFB, Florida
Pipes, XXXXX, Macdill AFB, Florida
Roche, James, Macdill, Florida
Rumsfeld, Donald, now in Florida
Stillman, Phillip, Attorney for Dennis Montgomery, now in Miami, Florida
Madden, Tom, Boca Raton, Florida
Olivia, Adrian, Eglin AFB, Florida
Bartholomew, Mary L, Eglin AFB, Florida
Fiamengo, Nicholas A, Eglin AFB, Florida
Freeman, Gregory J, Eglin AFB, Florida
Savage, Cynthia, Eglin AFB, Florida
McCool, John C, Eglin AFB, Florida
Temple, James K, Eglin AFB, Florida
Griffin, Susan M., Macdill AFB, Florida
Russell, Deborah, Macdill AFB, Florida
Nettelhorst, Doug M, Macdill AFB, Florida
Stallworth, Hugh T, Macdill AFB, Florida
Bob McCaskey, Macdill AFB, Florida
Crutchfield, Chris, Macdill AFB, Florida
Melnyk, Michael S., Macdill AFB, Florida
15

83
Lopez, Tina M, Macdill AFB, Florida

Cerny, Jeffrey D., Macdill AFB, Florida
Muccio, Anthony B., Eglin AFB, Florida
McKinney, Scott E Lt.Col., Eglin AFB, Florida
Purvis, Brad Civ, Eglin AFB, Florida
'Kirsch, Jim', Eglin AFB, Florida
Hughes, Stacey L, Eglin AFB, Florida (See Exhibit 13, attached to this affidavit).
37) Ultimately, I became aware that James Risen had published these false reports in the
Book and that Risen was conducting a nationwide publicity campaign to sell the
Book.
38) I heard and watched James Risen repeatedly in national and radio interviews
discussing his book but primarily about me, mostly ignoring and intentionally
omitting the rest of his Book in those interviews while attacking and defaming me as
a private individual.
39) In radio, television, and newspaper interviews, James Risen mainly focused on
slandering me in order to sell the Book in Florida and elsewhere.
40) Risens appearances on radio and television were not just commentary but attempts to
stimulate the sale of books inside Florida and elsewhere.
41) Risen was speaking on the radio and television shows in order to move books off of
Florida bookstore shelves and to the checkout counters in Florida and elsewhere.
42) The defamation by Defendants of me is not a criticism of the U.S. Government in the
District of Columbia, but excuses the U.S. Government as an innocent and
unsuspecting victim, while blaming me. Therefore, the U.S. Government has not
16

83
suffered harm within Washington, D.C.

43) I had relatively little contact with the U.S. Government in Washington, D.C.,
Maryland or Virginia. It was the companies that I worked under, eTreppid and later
BLXWARE, who contracted with regional offices at various U.S. Government bases
or facilities. I interacted almost entirely with technical people pursuant to the
contracts.
44) It was Warren Trepp and later Edra Blixseth who used their contacts with the U.S.
Government to seek and arrange contracts for our work. I did not persuade the U.S.
Government to hire me, Trepp and Blixseth did. My own interaction with offices or
officials in Washington, D.C. was very limited because I was not the one running the
companies nor primarily interacting with the U.S. Government.
45) Starting as early as 2011, I was contacted by James Risen asking about my secret
work under contract for the U.S. Government in support of anti-terrorism efforts.
46) I see that in James Risens Declaration attached to the Defendants Motion to
Dismiss, Risen states that he has been working on the Book since 2011.
47) I continually provided numerous warnings, in writing, to James Risen that the false
statements he mentioned and later published in October 2014 in the Book are false.
48) However, James Risen attempted to blackmail me by demanding that I provide
classified documents and information to him or else he would publish the false and
misleading statements that he later did publish in the Book. That is, when I warned
him that the reports were false and misleading, James Risen responded to me by
telling me that he would not publish those false statements if instead I provided him
with classified information and documents. That is, James Risen demanded that I
17

83
commit multiple crimes as the price for Risen not publishing the false and misleading
reports about me. Of course, I refused to be blackmailed into breaking the law as the
price for not being defamed.
49) Writers Aram Roston and James Risen were both after John Brennans information.
They both knew that I had worked for John Brennan. Both wanted his emails.
50) Roston and Risen published false and defamatory information about me to try to
pressure me into releasing classified information about John Brennan and others in
the war on terror to them as the price for them telling the truth.
51) However, Roston and Risen knew that my work was real and legitimate, because they
sought to obtain secret and classified information from Brennan from me.
52) Roston and Risen published defamation about me to punish and pressure me for not
illegally disclosing classified information and material to them.
53) In both cases, I told Risen and Roston I would have to turn over classified
information, a road I wasnt willing to go down. I was never what they were after.
They were writing these stories to hurt me so that I would provide classified
information about the various administrations. I was just their pawn.
54) Attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 8 are a few of my communications to James
Risen informing him in advance of the publication of the Book that his statements
were not only false but preposterous and that his sources were clearly unreliable.
55) In fact, on November 1, 2012, discussing the Book that he was then writing, I warned
James Risen under the email address TheAgencyInsider@Hotmail.com that his
reporting was false including because Warren Trepp was the CEO of eTreppid and
kept all the money. See Exhibit 8, attached to this affidavit.
18

83
56) Risen also promised in that same email thread: If you give us the Brennan emails,
we will write a story. See Exhibit 8, attached to this affidavit.
57) However, this response was in the context of a long back-and-forth discussion
concerning the falsehood of Risens false and misleading statements against me.
58) Risen also promised in the attached email thread: As I said on the phone, I protect
my sources. I will never divulge the identify of my sources in a leak investigation.
But I also have to know that the source is telling me the truth. Jim
59) So Risen admitted that it was his professional responsibility to determine that the
sources he used to defame me are telling the truth. But Risen did not do that. The
sources he relied upon were obviously not telling the truth, as is patently obvious.
60) I warned James Risen concerning the falsehood of his reporting in that November 1,
2012, email thread, attached:
There is a reason the CIA and NSA were there, you must know
that.
Do you really think the government invoked the State Secrets
Privilege from being embarrassed or conned? Negroponte in his in
camera declaration, if ever released, was spell it all of out.
They government never wanted information to come out regarding
the other work. The program started out spying on terrorist, and
under Obama quickly moved to spying on Americans!! A program
which was started by Brennan in 2003 and continues to this day.
This technology is being used today to spy on Americans,
I don't see you ever publishing that information? See Exhibit 81,
attached to this affidavit.
While my counsel turned over these initial disclosures to Defendants counsel, Defendants did
not turn over initial disclosure documents to my counsel in violation of the Courts Order of
April 1, 2015. I have asked my counsel to file a motion for order to show cause.
19

83
61) Furthermore, this November 1, 2012, exchange concerning Risens plans writing the
Book which was eventually published on October 14, 2014, was seven (7) months
before the revelations by Edward Snowden that mass surveillance of Americans was
occurring. Therefore, Risen actually knew in 2013 that I was telling the truth and was
being lied about by his so-called sources. My discussions with James Risen on
November 1, 2012, were proven true in mid-2013. Therefore, Risen had actual
knowledge that I was indeed a whistleblower and that the sources he relied upon were
falsely discrediting me to cover up wrong-doing. In this, of course, Pulitzer Prize
winning New York Times reporter James Risen intentionally and falsely omitted the
real story.
62) I made it clear to James Risen, in the phone call referenced in the email, that the
Obama administration used mass surveillance technology to alter the 2012 election in
Florida, and that they will use the technology again in 2016.
63) In June of 2012, in a telephone call, I told James Risen and Eric Lichtblau that their
information about me in their 2011 New York Times story was incorrect, and they
needed to correct it. I also made it clear that I was under a federal court Protective
Order in Nevada, and a State Secrets Privilege order by the Director of National
Intelligence not allowing me to discuss my work. In addition, there were sealed
documents still in the Nevada case. I also made it clear, that the State secrets
privilege was also issued, to protect the work I did on domestic surveillance. I told
them I knew they met with my ex attorney Mike Flynn, for several days, in regards to
their story, and suggested, he had other motives for his conduct.
64) I also made it clear in June of 2012 that I had a brain aneurysm that was going to be
20

83
repaired soon, and a risky procedure, and wanted my name cleared in case I died.
65) Therefore, the Defendants believed they could get away with their defamation
because I would probably die in the meantime.
66) In 2013, going over Risens and Lichtblaus heads, I sent emails directly to the editors
of The New York Times telling them their story was wrong and to retract it.
67) I sent an email to the Editors of The New York Times, demanding that they correct
the false reporting about me in 2012.
68) I believe that The New York Times conveyed my emails requesting a retraction of the
false statements to James Risen.
69) In 2012-2014, on at least 10 different occasions I made it clear to Aram Roston of
Playboy that his story was wrong and told him to retract it.
70) Carlotta Wells, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney assigned to matters involving
me, told me that if I talk to the press or leaked information, I will be charged with
treason for disclosing my work with the NSA and CIA. She told me when I signed
my Top Secret clearance, I forfeited my right to protect my first amendment rights.
71) Carlotta Wells additionally said that If the US Government wants to leak false
information to the press to hide successful work, and to confuse terrorist groups, they
will do it irrespective of my rights. Deal with it!
72) Carlotta Wells also stated to me and Jack Kemp, about my legal matters with the CIA
that I [Carlotta Wells] am just a foot solder doing what I am told of to do from the
White House. I dont agree with their strategy, but that is the way it is. Jack Kemp
replied, You are a senior litigation attorney for the DOJ, hard for me to believe that
you were listening to them. Carlotta Wells in turn replied Take it up with you
21

83
friend George Bush.

73) I am personally aware that, through my counsel, two separate letters were sent to
executives at Houghton Mifflin requesting a retraction of the false and misleading
publication.
74) The first letter was sent on January 14, 2015 to Linda K. Zecher, President and Chief
Executive Officer and Director of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, William Bayers,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
located in Boston. See Exhibit 14, attached to this affidavit.
75) The second letter was sent on February 13, 2015, pursuant to Florida Statute 770.02
again requesting a retraction of the false and misleading published statements. See
76) On January 20, 2015, I, through my counsel, received a letter from David Eber,
ccing James Risen and William Bayers, declining to redact the false and misleading
statements and also declining to meet my counsel to resolve matters amicably. See
I hereby swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and
correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief:
April 27, 2015
//Dennis Montgomery//
Mr. Dennis Montgomery
22

83
Exhibit A

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83
Exhibit B

83

83

83

83

83

83

83
ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF EXAMPLES OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, COMMENTS
DEFAMATION PER SE
1.
The following statements are defamatory per se, recognized under Florida law
when statements are so powerful in their ability to hurt someone that Florida law presumes
harmful as a matter of law. Montgomery v. Knox, 23 Fla. 595, 3 So. 211, 217 (1887), such that a
judge will allow damages to be awarded in these cases even if no evidence of harm has been
presented. [T]he law presumes malice in their utterance, Abraham v. Baldwin, 52 Fla. 151, 42
So. 591, 592 (1906), where the words are of such common notoriety established by the
general consent of men, that the courts must of necessity take judicial notice of its harmful
effect. Layne v. Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234, 236 (1933).
2.
First, on Page 32 of the Book, Risen writes: 2

Consider the example of Dennis Montgomery. He provides a
perfect case study to explain how during the war on terror greed and
ambition have been married to unlimited rivers of cash to create a
climate in which someone who has been accused of being a con
artist was able to create a rogue intelligence operation with little or
no adult supervision. Crazy became the new normal in the war on
terror, and the original objectives of the war got lost in the process.
3.
As libel per se, Risen asserted that out of greed Montgomery create[d] a rogue
intelligence operation with little or no adult supervision and that he was someone who has been
accused of being a con artist.
1
Examples of defamation per se include those that hurt ones profession, business or trade;
falsely state that a person has a socially unacceptable illness or disease; or falsely state that a
person has been involved in some kind of criminal activity. Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v.
Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
2
Note that several statements may qualify under different theories, but are presented in full
for proper context. Some statements are repeated for that portion of the statement that qualifies
under different theories of defamation under Florida law.

83
4.
Second, on Page 32 of the Book, the Risen writes:

Whatever else he was, Dennis Montgomery was a man who
understood how best to profit from Americas decade of fear. He saw
the post-9/11 age for what it was, a time to make money. Montgomery
was the maestro behind what many current and former U.S. officials
and others familiar with the case now believe was one of the most
elaborate and dangerous hoaxes in American history, a ruse that was so
successful that it nearly convinced the Bush administration to order
fighter jets to start shooting down commercial airliners filled with
passengers over the Atlantic. Once it was over, once the fever broke
and government officials realized that they had been taken in by a
grand illusion, they did absolutely nothing about it. The Central
Intelligence Agency buried the whole insane episode and acted like it
had never happened. The Pentagon just kept working with
Montgomery. Justice Department lawyers fanned out across the country
to try to block any information about Montgomery and his schemes
from becoming public, invoking the state secrets privilege in public, a
series of civil lawsuits involving Montgomery. It was as if everyone in
Washington was afraid to admit that the Emperor of the War on Terror
had no clothes.
5.
As libel per se, Risen asserted Montgomerys work many current and former
U.S. officials and others familiar with the case now believe was one of the most elaborate and
dangerous hoaxes in American history, a ruse that was so successful that it nearly convinced the
Bush administration to order fighter jets to start shooting down commercial airliners filled with
passengers over the Atlantic.
6.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about the Montgomery that once the fever broke
and government officials realized that they had been taken in by a grand illusion, they did
absolutely nothing about it
7.
Third, on Page 33 of the Book, Risen writes:

A former medical technician, a self-styled computer software
expert with no experience whatsoever in national security affairs,
Dennis Montgomery almost singlehandedly prompted President
Bush to ground a series of international commercial flights based
on what now appears to have been an elaborate hoax. Even after it
appeared that Montgomery had pulled off a scheme of amazing

83
scope, he still had die-hard supporters in the government who

steadfastly refused to believe the evidence suggesting that
Montgomery was a fake, and who rejected the notion that the
super-secret computer software that he foisted on the Pentagon and
CIA was anything other than Americas salvation.
8.
As libel per se, Risen asserted that Montgomerys work now appears to have
been an elaborate hoax.

9.
As libel per se, Risen asserted that die-hard supporters in the government who
steadfastly refused to believe the evidence suggesting that Montgomery was a fake.
10.
As libel per se, Risen asserted that he that he foisted on the Pentagon and CIA
super-secret computer software.

11.
Fourth, on Page 34 of the Book, the Risen writes:

Montgomery was an overweight, middle-aged, incorrigible gambler,
a man who liked to play long odds because he was convinced that he
could out-think the house. He once boasted to a business partner that
he had a system for counting an eight-deck blackjack shoe, quite a
difficult feat for even the best card sharks, and he regularly tested his
theories at the El Dorado and the Peppermill Casino in Reno. He
usually came up short but that didnt stop him from playing blackjack
on a nightly basis, racking up unwieldy debts that eventually led to his
2010 arrest for bouncing more than $ 1 million in bad checks at
Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.
12.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about the Montgomery that he was an incorrigible
gambler, meaning in effect that Montgomery was a gambling addict who was playing
blackjack on a nightly basis. Historically, gambling and in particular an uncontrollable
gambling addict is a loathsome social status.
13.
Fifth, on Page 36 of the Book, Risen writes:

Michael Flynn, Montgomerys former lawyer who later
concluded that Montgomery was a fraud.

83
14.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about the Montgomery that Montgomerys lawyer
concluded that Montgomery was a fraud.

15.
Sixth, on Page 37 of the Book, Risen writes:

By the spring and summer of 2003, eTreppid was awarded contracts
by both the air force and U.S. Special Operations Command.
Montgomery was able to win over the government in part by offering
field tests of his technology tests that former employees say were
fixed to impress visiting officials. Warren Trepp later told the FBI
that he eventually learned that Montgomery had no real computer
software programming skills, according to court documents that
include his statements to the FBI. Trepp also described to federal
investigators how eTreppid employees had confided to him that
Montgomery had asked them to help him falsify tests of his object
recognition software when Pentagon officials came to visit. Trepp
said that on one occasion, Montgomery told two eTreppid employees
to go into an empty office and push a button on a computer when they
heard a beep on a cell phone. Meanwhile, Montgomery carried a toy
bazooka into a field outside eTreppid. He was demonstrating to a
group of visiting U.S. military officials that his technology could
recognize the bazooka from a great distance.
16.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that he committed fraud
including defrauding the U.S. Government, prohibited under the False Claims Act codified at 31
U.S.C. 3729 3733.
17.
Seventh, on Page 37 of the Book, Risen writes:

After he was in place in the field, he used a hidden cell phone to
buzz the cell phone of one the eTreppid employees, who then pushed
a key on a computer keyboard, which in turn flashed an image of a
bazooka on another screen prominently displayed in front of the
military officers standing in another room, according to court
documents. The military officers were convinced that Montgomerys
computer software had amazingly detected and recognized the
bazooka in Montgomerys hands. (Montgomery insists that the
eTreppid employees lied when they claimed that he had asked them to
fix the tests, and also says that the air force issued a report showing
that it had verified the tests.)

83
18.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that he committed fraud
including defrauding the U.S. Government, prohibited under the False Claims Act codified at 31
U.S.C. 3729 3733.
19.
Eighth, on Page 40 of the Book, Risen writes:

Montgomery brilliantly played on the CIAs technical insecurities
as well as the agencys woeful lack of understanding about al
Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. He was able to convince the CIA that
he had developed a secret new technology that enabled him to
decipher al Qaeda codes embedded in the network banner
displayed on the broadcasts of Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news
network. Montgomery sold the CIA on the fantasy that al Qaeda
was using the broadcasts to digitally transmit its plans for future
terrorist attacks. And only he had the technology to decode those
messages, thus saving America from another devastating attack.
The CIA more credulous than Hollywood or Las Vegas fell
for Montgomerys claims. In short, he convinced CIA officials that
he could detect terrorist threats by watching television.
20.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that Montgomery sold the
CIA on the fantasy that al Qaeda was using the broadcasts to digitally transmit its plans for
future terrorist attacks.
21.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that he defrauded the CIA.
22.
Ninth, on Page 42 of the Book, Risen writes:

A CIA official defensively pointed out that the agency did not
actually have a contract with eTreppid at the time Montgomery was
providing data from the Al Jazeera videotapes. While they were
working closely together during the final months of 2003, the CIA
had not yet started paying Montgomery, the official said. The
agency never finalized a contract with him because agency staff
eventually realized they had been conned, according to this official.
But that does not diminish the fact that for a few crucial months, the
CIA took Montgomery and his technology very seriously.
23.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that agency staff eventually
realized they had been conned, according to this official.

83
24.
Tenth, on Page 46 of the Book, the Risen writes:

It did not take long for the French firm to conclude that the whole
thing was a hoax. The French company said that there were simply
not enough pixels in the broadcasts to contain hidden bar codes or
unseen numbers. The firm reported back to the French government
that the supposed intelligence was a fabrication.
25.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that the whole thing
(Montgomerys work) was a hoax and a fabrication.

26.
Eleventh, on Page 46 of the Book, the Risen writes:

The CIA never investigated the apparent hoax nor examined how it
had been handled inside the agency. No one involved in promoting
Montgomery, in vouching for his information to the president, or in
proposing to shoot down planes based on his claims ever faced any
consequences.
27.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that his work was a hoax.
28.
Twelfth, on Page 47 of the Book, the Risen writes:

At the time of the Christmas 2003 scare, John Brennan was head of
the newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center and in charge of
distributing terrorism-related intelligence throughout the government.
That meant that Brennans office was responsible for circulating
Montgomerys fabricated intelligence to officials in the highest
reaches of the Bush administration. But Brennan was never
admonished for his role in the affair. After Barack Obama became
president, Brennan was named to be his top counterterrorism advisor
in the White House. He later became CIA director.
29.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that That meant that
Brennans office was responsible for circulating Montgomerys fabricated intelligence to

officials in the highest reaches of the Bush administration.
30.
Thirteenth, on Page 50 of the Book, Risen writes:

Edra Blixseth was Dennis Montgomerys latest mark. After being
introduced to him by a former Microsoft executive and then hearing
Montgomery explain his software, she agreed in 2006 to bankroll
Montgomery to launch a new company, to be called Blxware.

83
Montgomery needed new government contracts for Blxware, and

Edra Blixseth had the money and contacts to try to make it happen.
31.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that Edra Blixseth was Dennis
Montgomerys latest mark, clearly asserting Montgomery to be a con man.

32.
The libel is false, including because Montgomery owed no stock or ownership in
BLIXWARE so as to be able to make a mark of Edra Blixseth.

33.
Fourteenth, on November 6, 2014, James Risen appeared as an interview guest
on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, by Comedy Central, interviewed by Jon Stewart.
Exhibit A, attached. The television interview was taped at The Daily Shows studio 11th Avenue
between 51st and 52nd Street, New York (Manhattan), New York, and broadcast for the first time
nationwide across the United States of America through cable television and satellite television
on The Comedy Central channel.
34.
James Risen stated in said television interview for his statements to be broadcast
on TV that his favorite story is the story of

Dennis Montgomery who is this guy was as a computer software
expert, supposed expert. Who convinced the CIA in 2003 that he had
the super-secret technology to read Al Jazeera news broadcasts and
decipher Al Qaeda codes inside the [interrupted by Jon Stewart]
[Jon Stewart] An Enigma machine for Al Qaeda...?
[Dennis Montgomery] Right. And he convinced the CIA in 2003 that
he could read numbers and letters hidden in the Al Jazeera broadcasts
that corresponded with flights that Al Qaeda was going to shoot down,
knock--- or blow up.
President Bush was so convinced of this that they grounded flights all
over the world at Christmas 2003 based on this guy's intelligence or
supposed intelligence. It took the French intelligence service, who had
gotten very mad because they grounded flights from Paris to Los
Angeles. And they demanded that the CIA tell them where they were
getting this information. And so they finally [non-verbal

83
interruption]. They finally got the information. The French told them
this is a hoax. This is a fabrication.
And as soon as the CIA agreed with them, they covered the whole thing
up, and refused to ever talk about it. And Montgomery kept getting
more contracts after that.
[Other, extended discussion with Jon Stewart on other topics]
There is lots of raw intelligence every day that says there is an attack
about to happen. You really have to be a pretty sophisticated
consumer of intelligence after several years to begin to realize what's
real and what's not really a credible threat.
35.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that he convinced the CIA in
2003 that he could read numbers and letters hidden in the Al Jazeera broadcasts that
corresponded with flights that Al Qaeda was going to shoot down, knock--- or blow up.
36.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that The French told them this
is a hoax. This is a fabrication. And as soon as the CIA agreed with them, they covered the
whole thing up, and refused to ever talk about it. And Montgomery kept getting more contracts
after that. The statement that the CIA agreed with them is Risens assertion about
Montgomerys work that this is a hoax. This is a fabrication.
37.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that they covered the whole
thing up, and refused to ever talk about it, as a way of saying that the CIA had been conned.
38.
Fifteenth, on October 13, 2014, James Risen gave a television interview
with
Judy Woodruff which was broadcast nationwide by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). In
that interview, James Risen made the following statements for broadcast on television, and Judy
Woodruff repeated many points from James Risens book which Risen agreed with and
endorsed. Much of the interview involved other chapters not relevant here.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/costs-security-price-high/
8

83
JUDY WOODRUFF: In the next chapter, JAMES RISEN, you write

about millions of dollars spent on programs that were completely
fraudulent. One was run by a man named Dennis Montgomery. He
was a, He was a .... I guess he had worked in computer software...
but he was a GAMBLER! 4
JAMES RISEN: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And he sold the CIA and the Pentagon on
technology that turned out to be not at all what he said it was.
JAMES RISEN: It is difficult to tell in some of these cases who is
scamming who. If you talk to Montgomery, he argues that the CIA
wanted him to do what he was doing. And so its a fascinating
dynamic that's developed in the war on terror, between people who
recognize the opportunities for this gold rush and the agencies which
are... who have so much money to spend now, they're getting so much
more money than they ever had before, that in some cases they don't
know what to do with.
In this case, they began to believe, in this sort of war fever, that you
could find Al Qaeda messages hidden in Al Jazeera broadcasts. And
so that.. that program, that highly secret program, was used to ground
planes all over Europe and the United States
JUDY WOODRUFF: When actually there was nothing to it.
JAMES RISEN: Right
JUDY WOODRUFF: It was a hoax.
JAMES RISEN: Right. Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And then there was another part of it where he
was saying he had special facial recognition software....
JAMES RISEN: Right. Right
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... used on drones?
JAMES RISEN: Yeah. There were cases in which people said that
he was fooling the military and the CIA about his operations and
how... what kind of techniques and technologies he had. He would
argue that the CIA actually wanted him and or the army believed him
4
Emphasis, by exclamation in tone of voice, the in original conversation.

9

83
and tested it. So it's this very complicated story about a man
recognizing an opportunity who had never been involved in national
security before and the CIA and the military all just hungry for
whoever could come with the latest idea.
39.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that you write about millions
of dollars spent on programs that were completely fraudulent. One was run by a man named
Dennis Montgomery, which Risen confirms by saying Right. (Actually where the discussion
is about the next chapter that chapter is exclusively about Dennis Montgomery alone.)
40.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that When actually there was
nothing to it, which Risen confirms by saying Right. And also It was a hoax, which Risen
confirms by saying Right. Right.
41.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that There were cases in
which people said that he was fooling the military and the CIA about his operations and how...
what kind of techniques and technologies he had.
42.
Sixteenth, on October 24, 2014, James Risen gave an audio interview with Lucy
Worsley published on the New York Times website, titled Inside The New York Times Book
Review: James Risens Pay Any Price which is accessible at that website address.
In this
interview Inside The New York Times Book Review, with Pamela Paul, October 24, 2014,
James Risen stated for national broadcast:
PAMELA PAUL: How do we count and account for the costs of the
government's war on terror. We'll talk to James Risen, author of Pay
Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War.
See: ArtsBeat: Book Review Podcast: James Risen's 'Pay Any Price', by John Williams,
New York Times, October 24, 2014, http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/book-reviewpodcast-james-risens-pay-any-price/ , based upon Louise Richardsons book review of Risens
book.
10

83
JAMES RISEN ("tease" audio clip): It seems to me that what the

war on terror had become in thirteen years was a search for cash and a
search for power and status.
PAMELA PAUL: What is the British fascination with murder?
Lucy Worsley will explain all joining us to talk with us about her new
book: The Art of the English Murder.
LUCY WORSLEY ("tease" audio clip): The public used to consume
murder in a way that you can still see the modern media doing it
today. Just look at the Pistorius trial.
PAMELA PAUL: Alexander Alter will be here with Notes from the
Publishing world. And Greg Cole has bestseller news. This is "Inside
the New York Times Book Review." I am Pamela Paul.
James Risen joins me now. His new book is Pay Any Price: Greed,
Power, and Endless War. Hi James.
JAMES RISEN: Hi, thanks for having me.
PAMELA PAUL: Thanks for being here. Now this is a book that
covers a lot of territory. Tell us briefly about what it is you set out to
write about in the book.
JAMES RISEN: What I wanted to do was, I'd written one book
before about the war on terror, and I wanted to follow up with a new
book that kind of looked at where we were 13 years after 9/11 and
how we had what started out in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as
kind of a search for justice or a search for retribution or whatever you
want to think, say we were doing right after 9/11 as a country. It
seemed to me that what the war had become in 13 years was a search
for cash and a search for power and status and that it was becoming
an endless war in which we had a new mercenary class of people who
were taking advantage of the war on terror. And that enormous
unintended consequences had happened. And I began to hear about
just some really crazy things that were going on. And so I thought it
would make a good story.
[The discussion then covers the Chapter "Rosetta" not relevant here,
concerning a lawsuit for 9/11 families against Saudi Arabia, except
the ending]
JAMES RISEN [winds up the Chapter on "Rosetta" by saying]: ....
in the war on terror became so complicated and so difficult to tell
what was really going on, to me it was like a case study in how the
11

83
war on terror had been turned for other uses, and become a....
something that you could never tell what was the truth and what was
not the truth. And that to me was at the heart of the problems with the
war on terror, that you could never tell what's real and what was
concoction today.
[The discussion then covers how Risen went about researching the
book, not relevant here]
PAMELA PAUL: Did a lot of it arise out of stories that, reporting
that you'd originally done for the Times?
JAMES RISEN: Some of it. For instance, I did a chapter The
Emperor of the War on Terror, about Dennis Montgomery who
[laughs] who's a strange character, who I'd done a story about him for
the New York Times along with Eric Lichtbau my colleague there at
the Times. He's one of the most fascinating characters in the war on
terror. He... He was a computer software expert who convinced the
CIA that he could decipher secret codes from Al Qaeda in the Al
Jazeera news broadcasts. And that he could tell the CIA numbers and
letters that corresponded with flights that Al Qaeda wanted to attack.
And the CIA took this so seriously that they grounded, that the Bush
Administration grounded a bunch of international flights in Christmas
2003 based on what this guy was telling them. And when they
realized it was a hoax, they covered the whole thing up and never did
anything about it. So I had done a story for the Times with.... about
that and then expanded on that and got a lot more information for the
book.
PAMELA PAUL: How did you find out about him?
JAMES RISEN: Well he had been written about a little bit before we
wrote about it. But I had also, even before he was written about by
other people, I had heard from people in the CIA that there was this
crazy operation that nobody wanted to talk about, that they were all
embarrassed by. To me that, it was like a case study in just how crazy
the war on terror has become. And the only thing that makes sense
about why its gotten so crazy, is I think we kind of have deregulated
national security and we took all, you know, Cheney said we're going
to take the gloves off. And that means we deregulated national
security at the same time we poured hundreds of billions of dollars
into counter-terrorism. And so its had enormous unintended
consequences from what is essentially a national security crisis that is
kind of like the banking crisis.
12

83
[The interview discussion then turns to the alleged deregulation of

national security on other topics not relevant here.]
43.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that And when they [the CIA]
realized it was a hoax, they covered the whole thing up and never did anything about it.
44.
The libel is false, for the reasons identified above, and including that Montgomery
never purported to be an expert in intelligence but left interpretation of the data he uncovered to
intelligence experts of the U.S. Government.
45.
Seventeenth, James Risen sat for a nationwide television news interview on the
television show DEMOCRACY NOW! A Daily Independent Global News Hour, with Amy
Goodman & Juan Gonzlez, at 207 W. 25th St., Floor 11, New York, NY 10001 on October 14,
2014. On this nationwide television news broadcast, the conversation turned to:
AMY GOODMAN: Dennis Montgomery?
JAMES RISEN: Dennis Montgomery is a fascinating character,
whohe was a computer software person, self-styled expert, who
developed what he said was special technology that would allow him
to do things with computers that other people couldnt do. One of the
things that he developed was this imaging technology that he said he
could find images on broadcast network news tapes from Al Jazeera.
He said that he could read special secret al-Qaeda codes in the
banners on the broadcasts of Al Jazeera. And the CIA believed this.
And he was giving them information based on watching hours and
hours of Al Jazeera tapes, saying that "I know where the next alQaeda attack is going to be basedis going to happen." And the Bush
administration and the CIA fell for this.
AMY GOODMAN: And it was in the news zipper at the bottom of
the Al Jazeera broadcasts?
JAMES RISEN: Well, he says it was in the banner. But anyway.
And so, it was this greatif you talk to him, he argues, well, they
thats what they were looking for. You know, they convinced him to
look for this. You know, it depends on who you talk to. But it was one
of the great hoaxes of the war on terror, where they actually grounded
planes in Europe, the Bush administration, based on information they
13

83
were getting from Dennis Montgomerys so-called decryption of Al

Jazeera broadcasts.
And then theres a whole number of other things, like Alarbus, which
was this covert program at the Pentagon where a Palestinian involved
in that was actually trying to use the bank account set up by the secret
program, Pentagon program, to launder hundreds of millions of
dollars. And the FBI investigated this, but then tried to keep the whole
thing quiet.
AMY GOODMAN: How much did the U.S. government give to
Dennis Montgomery?
JAMES RISEN: Millions of dollars. And then he usedhe was a
heavy gambler and eventually, I think, had a lot of financial problems
as a result of that. So, its a strangeto me, the Dennis Montgomery
story is one of the strangest, because what it shows is, early on in the
war on terror, as I said, the CIA and all these other agencies had so
much money to spend on counterterrorism that they were willing to
throw it at everything. They were so afraid of the next terrorist attack
that they were willing to believe anybody who came up with some
idea. And I called that chapter about Montgomery, you know, "The
Emperor of the War on Terror," because nobody wanted to say that
the emperor had no clothes.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it had very real effects, aside from
spending all that money.
JAMES RISEN: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: For example, planes being sent back.
JAMES RISEN: Yes, yes. There were planes grounded. International
flights between the United States and Europe and Mexico were
grounded. There was talk at the White House even of shooting down
planes based on this information.
AMY GOODMAN: Because they could be used, as with September
11th, as weapons?
JAMES RISEN: Yeah, as missiles or whatever. And so, it was crazy.
It was absolutely insane.
AMY GOODMAN: And it was only the French government who
then did a study?
14

83
JAMES RISEN: Yes, yes. Yeah, the French government finally

you know, the U.S.the CIA and the Bush administration didnt
want to tell anybody what was really happening, where they were
getting this information. You know, "This supersecret information
about Al Jazeera, we cant tell you." And finally, the French
intelligence service and the French government said, "You know,
youre grounding our planes. Youve got to tell us where youre
getting this information." And they gotthey finally shared the
information with them, and the French got a French tech firm to look
at this, and they said, "This is nuts. This is fabrication." And after a
while, the CIA was finally convinced maybe the French were right,
and they stopped talking about it. They didnt do anything else. They
just like shut it down eventually, but never wanted to talk about what
had really happened.
AMY GOODMAN: Then Dennis Montgomery, revealed as a con
man
JAMES RISEN: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: in jail for that?
JAMES RISEN: Well, no, hes not in jail. But it was ahe actually
got more contracts after that, with the Pentagon and other agencies.
And he continued to operate for a long time. You know, he kind of
went from one agency to the other.
AMY GOODMAN: Were talking to James Risen, Pulitzer Prizewinning investigative journalist for The New York Times. His new
book, just out today, Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War.
When we come back, war corrupts, endless war corrupts absolutely.
Stay with us.
[break]
46.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that But it was one of the great
hoaxes of the war on terror, where they actually grounded planes in Europe, the Bush
administration, based on information they were getting from Dennis Montgomerys so-called
decryption of Al Jazeera broadcasts.
47.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery when asked How much did
the U.S. government give to Dennis Montgomery? Risen answered in reply: Millions of
15

83
dollars. And then he usedhe was a heavy gambler and eventually, I think, had a lot of financial
problems as a result of that.
48.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that the French got a French
tech firm to look at this, and they said, This is nuts. This is fabrication.
49.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery when asked Then Dennis
Montgomery, revealed as a con man Risen confirmed in reply: Yeah, yeah.

50.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that he should be in jail.
51.
Eighteenth, James Risen gave an interview with Conversations with Great
Minds of The Big Picture RT with talk show host Thom Hartmann on October 24, 2014.
THOM HARTMAN: ... [Abrupt change of topic starting at about
time 5:27] ... There's just this enormous amount of government
money. Let's throw it at the private sector. They'll make things well.
One of the members of the private sector who came forward and said
I've got a secret, I can figure this stuff out, was a guy by the name of
Dennis Montgomery.
JAMES RISEN: Right. Uh, Dennis Montgomery is one of the best
stories in the war on terror. I think somebody should make a movie
about him. Dennis Montgomery was a computer software expert who
said that he had developed technology that basically could find objects
hidden in the video on television. And so he convinced, through a
whole series of contacts and meetings that I detail in the book, he was
able to get to the CIA and convince the CIA that he had the technology
to decipher Al Qaeda codes that were he said were hidden in Al Jazeera
news broadcasts.
THOM HARTMAN: They were hidden in the Chiron or the -JAMES RISEN: In the banner. In the banner, actually. He said that
he could find numbers and letters that were constantly showing up, or
not showing up but were being hidden, embedded deeply in the video.
And he would then give these numbers and letters to the CIA. And the
CIA, either he told them or they convinced themselves that these
numbers and letters corresponded to flights, international airline flights,
that Al Qaeda was going to attack. And so in December, in Christmas
6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8f4Pp9Zc
16

83
2003, the Bush Administration and the CIA took this so seriously that
they actually grounded a whole series of international flights coming
into and out of the United States, and the White House even considered
shooting down some of these flights over the Atlantic.
THOM HARTMAN: Whoa.
JAMES RISEN: And once the CIA later was convinced by French
intelligence that this was all a fabrication and that this kind of
technology didn't exist and that these supposed Al Qaeda codes weren't
really in the Al Jazeera newscasts, the CIA covered the whole thing up
and never went public with it and just tried to act like it never
happened.
THOM HARTMAN: Well we know how aggressively this and
particularly the Obama Administration right now has gone after
whistleblowers and reporters. You would think they would also go
after people who had scammed the CIA. If one of us walked in off the
street and said to the CIA, hey have I got a deal for you, and it was just
a total lie, and they gave us millions of dollars, which they gave to
Dennis Montgomery, you'd think he would end up in prison.
JAMES RISEN: Well, no, he ended up getting more contracts from
the military... and the Pentagon. And he was continuing, he continued
to operate for several years. It's really a remarkable story.
THOM HARTMAN: Yeah, it really and truly is.
[Topic changes abruptly to discussions of torture in the war on terror]
52.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that the CIA later was
convinced by French intelligence that this was all a fabrication and that this kind of technology
didn't exist.
53.
As libel per se, Risen asserted about Montgomery that he belongs in prison,
responding to the question You would think they would also go after people who had scammed
the CIA. If one of us walked in off the street and said to the CIA, hey have I got a deal for you,
and it was just a total lie, and they gave us millions of dollars, which they gave to Dennis
Montgomery, you'd think he would end up in prison, by Risen answering in reply: Well, no,
17

83
he ended up getting more contracts from the military... and the Pentagon. And he was
continuing, he continued to operate for several years. It's really a remarkable story.
GENERAL DEFAMATION
54.
In addition, Risen also made additional defamatory statements that are explicit
defamation under Florida law.

55.
Nineteenth, on Page 49 of the Book, Risen writes:

Trepp was furious. According to court documents, he told the FBI
that Montgomery had stolen the software eTreppid had used on secret
Pentagon contracts. As federal investigators moved in to investigate
the alleged theft of the technology, they heard from Trepp and others
that Montgomerys alleged technology wasnt real.
56.
As explicit libel, Risen asserted about Montgomery that Montgomery had stolen
valuable software yet also asserted that the software wasnt real.
DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION UNDER FLORIDA LAW
Analogous to False Light
57.
For defamation by implication: . . . [L]iterally true statements can be defamatory
where they create a false impression. This variation is known as defamation by implication and
has a longstanding history in defamation law. See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098,
1106 (Fla. 2008). Defamation by implication occurs when a publication states facts that are
literally true, but produces a defamatory meaning apparent from a plain reading of the
publication in its entirety. See Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc. 993 F.3d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993).
58.
Montgomery thus claims here that if the Court finds that any of the statements
labeled First through Nineteenth do not qualify as defamation per se or general defamation,
18

83
then in the alternative Montgomery claims here that any and all such statements not qualifying as
defamation per se or general defamation are defamation by implication against Montgomery.
59.
Across the many examples of libelous statements from the Book or slanderous
interviews, Risen implies that Montgomery deceived the U.S. Government as to the meaning,
purpose, or interpretation of hidden data and clues that Montgomery uncovered, implying that
Montgomery defrauded and conned the U.S. Government.
60.
In fact, Montgomery refused to speculate as to the interpretation or meaning of
the data and analyses he uncovered, even when pressed to state what he thought the data might
mean, but Montgomery left the role of interpretation to U.S. Government intelligence experts.
61.
Thus, throughout the statements presented herein, Risen libels and slanders
Montgomery by implication that Montgomery defrauded and scammed the U.S. Government
concerning the meaning of the information Montgomery uncovered, implying that Montgomery
obtained millions of dollars by frightening and fooling child-like and gullible CIA officials.
62.
interviews, Risen implies that President George W. Bushs alleged decisions to ground and
almost shoot down passenger aircraft around Christmas 2003 (which Risen would have no way
of knowing about) were a result of Montgomerys fraud and scams, deceptively manipulating the
President of the United States and the U.S. national command authority.
63.
interviews, Risen implies that Montgomery should be in jail.

64.
Among the other statements, in particular, the First example of libel, on Page 32
of the Book, states that:

Consider the example of Dennis Montgomery. He provides a perfect
case study to explain how during the war on terror greed and ambition
19

83
have been married to unlimited rivers of cash to create a climate in

which someone who has been accused of being a con artist was able to
create a rogue intelligence operation with little or no adult supervision.
Crazy became the new normal in the war on terror, and the original
objectives of the war got lost in the process.
65.
Thus, as libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery committed fraud
and went to any lengths motivated by greed, to obtain money at any cost.
66.
Among the other statements, in particular, in the Eleventh example of libel, on
Page 46 of the Book, states that:

The CIA never investigated the apparent hoax nor examined how it
had been handled inside the agency.
67.
Here, as libel by implication, even if it is true that The CIA never investigated
what Risen describes as an apparent hoax, the implication is that Montgomery perpetrated a
hoax upon the CIA, and in return for money, which would be both a fraud and a crime.
68.
Similarly, in the Sixteenth example of slander from an interview, Risen states that
It seemed to me that what the war had become in 13 years was a search for cash and a search
for power and status and that it was becoming an endless war in which we had a new mercenary
class of people who were taking advantage of the war on terror, implying that Montgomerys
work is fraudulent in being merely an effort to get cash.
69.
Among the other statements, in particular, the Nineteenth example of libel, on
Page 49 of the Book, states that:

Trepp was furious. According to court documents, he told the FBI
that Montgomery had stolen the software eTreppid had used on secret
Pentagon contracts. As federal investigators moved in to investigate
the alleged theft of the technology, they heard from Trepp and others
that Montgomerys alleged technology wasnt real.
70.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery stole valuable software
yet at the same time the software was in fact worthless.
20

83
71.
In addition, Risen also made additional defamatory statements that are defamation
by implication under Florida law.

72.
Twentieth, on the Preface Page of the Book, Risen writes:

Ive come back, he repeated. I was the King of Kafiristan me
and Dravot crowned Kings we was! In this office we settled it
you setting there and giving us the books. I am Peachey Peachey
Taliaferro Carnehan and youve been setting here ever since
Oh, Lord!
I was more than a little astonished and expressed my feelings
accordingly.
Its true, said Carnehan, with a dry cackle, nursing his fee, which
were wrapped in rags. True as gospel. Kings we were, with
crowns upon our head me and Dravot poor Dan oh, poor,
poor Dan, that would never take advice, not though I begged of
him!
-- Rudyard Kipling, The Man Who Would be King.
73. As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery (along with others addressed
in the book) is a fraud and/or con man as in The Man Who Would be King.
74. Twenty-first, in the Prologue on Page xiv of the Book, Risen writes:
The new homeland security-industrial complex operates differently.
It is largely made up of a web of intelligence agencies and their
contractors, companies that mostly provide secret services rather than
large weapons systems and equipment. These contractors are hired to
help Washington determine the scale and scope of the terrorist threat;
they make no money if they determine that the threat is overblown or,
God forbid, if the war on terror ever comes to an end.
75.
As libel by implication, Risen states they make no money if they determine that
the threat is overblown or, God forbid, if the war on terror ever comes to an end, suggesting that
Montgomerys and eTreppids profits were contingent upon results, and false results at that.
76.
Twenty-second, in the Prologue on Page xv of the Book, Risen writes:
21

83
Thus, the creation of a homeland security complex at a time

of endless war has bequeathed us with the central narrative of the war
on terror modern tales of greed joined hand in hand with stories of
abuse of power. It was inevitable that those wise in the ways of the
world would flock to Washington to try to cash in on the war on terror
gold rush and they have. This book offers just a few of those
stories. But those trying to monetize Americas obsession with
terrorism are not the only ones who have sought to exploit 9/11.
Opportunism comes in many forms and is driven by more
than just greed. Ambition and a hunger for power, status, and glory
have become great engines of post-9/11 opportunism as well. The
more troubling stories here concern abuses of power that have
extended across two presidencies for well over a decade. After 9/11,
the United States deregulated national security, stripping away the
post-Watergate intelligence reforms of the 1970s that had
constrained executive power for thirty years. The results are morally
challenging and continue to this day.
77.
Thus, as libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery committed fraud
and went to any lengths motivated by greed, to obtain money at any cost.
78.
Twenty-third, in the Prologue on Page xvii of the Book, Risen writes:

Washingtons global war on terror is now in its second decade,
thanks to the bipartisan veneer it has gained under Bush and Obama.
It shows no signs of slowing down, hustlers and freebooters continue
to take full advantage, and the wars unintended consequences
continue to pile up. All too often, things are not what they seem.
79.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery one of the key objects
of the Book is a hustler and a freebooter.

80.
Twenty-fourth, Part 1 of the Book, including Chapter 2 which is focused entirely
on Dennis Montgomery, Risen have labeled Part 1: Greed

81.
Thus, by placing the chapter focused on Dennis Montgomery under a label for the
section of the Book of Greed, Risen libels Montgomery by implication as being motivated by
greed to commit fraud and carry out the alleged hoaxes identified in the rest of the Chapter 2.
22

83
82.
Twenty-fifth, Risen have labeled Chapter 2 of the Book which is focused entirely
on Dennis Montgomery: Chapter 2: The Emperor of the War on Terror.

83.
By naming the chapter focused on Dennis Montgomery The Emperor of the War
on Terror, Risen libels Montgomery by implication as being the mastermind of the fraud that
Risen seeks to portray the war on terror to be.
84.
Twenty-Sixth, on Page 40 of the Book, Risen writes:

The CIAs Science and Technology Directorate, which had
largely been stuck on the sidelines of the war on terror, saw in
Dennis Montgomery an opportunity to get in the game. The
directorate had played an important role in the Cold War, but in the
first few years of the war on terror, it was struggling to determine
how technology could be leveraged against groups of terrorists
who were trying to stay off the grid.
85. As libel by implication, again, Risen blames Montgomery for the decisions of
government officials.
86. Twenty-Seventh, on Page 42 of the Book, Risen writes:
Montgomery was telling the CIA exactly what it wanted to hear. At
the time, the Bush Administration was obsessed with Al Jazeera, not
only because of the networks unrelenting criticism of the invasion of
Iraq, but also because it had become Osama Bin Ladens favorite
outlet for broadcasting his videotaped messages to the world.
87. As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery defrauded and conned the CIA
by telling the CIA exactly what it wanted to hear.
88. Twenty-Eighth, on Page 42 of the Book, Risen writes:
What remains unclear is how Montgomery was able to convince all
of them that he had developed secret software that could decode Al
Qaedas invisible messages. While he had gotten by a few credulous
military officers who came to view his demonstrations, he apparently
found it just as easy to persuade the CIA as well.
23

83
89. As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery conned the U.S. Government
with a hoax. It would of course be entirely clear how Montgomery was able to convince all of
them if Montgomerys work and technology are legitimate.
90. Twenty-Ninth, on Page 46 of the Book, Risen writes:
Finally the French brought an end to it. Since Air France flights
to the United States were among those that had been grounded,
French officials had taken a dim view of the entire episode. They
began demanding answers from the Americans. The French
applied so much pressure on Washington that the CIA was finally
forced to reveal to French intelligence the source of the threat
information. Once they heard the story of Dennis Montgomery and
eTreppid, French officials arranged for a French high-tech firm to
reverse-engineer Montgomerys purported technology. The
French wanted to see for themselves whether the claims of hidden
messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts made any sense.
91. As libel by implication, if not explicit, the passage implies that Montgomery is a fraud
and that his work is a scam and a hoax.
92. Thirtieth, on Page 52 of the Book, Risen writes:
Montgomery continued to get defense contracts even during the
Obama administration. In 2009, Montgomery was awarded another
air force contract, and later claimed that he had provided the
government with warning of a threatened Somali terrorist attack
against President Obamas inauguration. Joseph Liberatore, an air
force official who described himself as one of the believers in
Montgomery and said he had heard from various federal agencies
thanking us for the support Montgomery and his company provided
during Obamas inauguration. The threat, however, later proved to be
a hoax.
93. As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomerys ability to continue to receive
contracts is due to Montgomerys ability to defraud the government (and stupidity of government
officials) rather than an endorsement of the legitimacy of Montgomerys work.
94. Thirty-First, on Page 31 of the Book, Risen writes:
24

83
and a new breed of entrepreneur learned that one of the surest and
easiest paths to riches could be found not in Silicon Valley building
computers or New York designing clothes but rather in Tysons
Corner, Virginia, coming up with new ways to predict, analyze, and
prevent terrorist attacks or, short of that, at least in convincing a
few government bureaucrats that you had some magic formula for
doing so.
95. As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery engaged in fraud to convince a
few government bureaucrats that he had a magic formula as an easy path to riches.
96. Thirty-Second, on Page 33 of the Book, Risen writes:
Montgomerys story demonstrates how hundreds of billions of
dollars poured into the war on terror went to waste. With all rules
discarded and no one watching the bottom line, government officials
simply threw money at contractors who claimed to offer an edge
against the new enemies. And the officials almost never checked back
to make sure that what they were buying from contractors actually did
any good or that the contractors themselves werent crooks. A 2011
study by the Pentagon found that during the ten years after 9/ 11, the
Defense Department had given more than $ 400 billion to contractors
who had previously been sanctioned in cases involving $ 1 million or
more in fraud.
97. As libel by implication, Risen implies that the money provided to Montgomery (among
others) went to waste.
98. Thirty-Third, on Page 33 of the Book, Risen writes:
The Montgomery episode teaches one other lesson, too: the chance
to gain promotions and greater bureaucratic power through access to
and control over secret information can mean that there is no
incentive for government officials to question the validity of that
secret information. Being part of a charmed inner circle holds a
seductive power that is difficult to resist.
99. As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomerys work was fraudulent.
100.
Thirty-Fourth, on Page 33 of the Book, Risen writes:

How his technology worked was a secret. Dennis Montgomerys
computer code became the great treasure behind eTreppid
Technologies, the company he and Trepp founded. Later, many of
25

83
those around Montgomery began to suspect the reason why

Montgomery had to guard his technological innovations so
carefully. They came to believe that at least some of the
technology didnt really exist.
101.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery committed fraud.
102.
Thirty-Fifth, on Page 35 of the Book, Risen writes:

Montgomery was on the lookout for somebody to bankroll him,
and had put out the word to his friends at the casinos that he
frequented the most. A year later, Montgomery and Trepp were in
business together. Trepp was one of the first, but hardly the last, to
be beguiled by Montgomerys claims that he had achieved
breakthroughs in computer technology of historic significance.
103.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery beguiled Warren Trepp
by committing fraud.
104.
Thirty-Sixth, on Page 39 of the Book, Risen writes:

For a few months in late 2003, the technology from Dennis
Montgomery and eTreppid so enraptured certain key government
officials that it was considered the most important and most sensitive
counterterrorism intelligence that the Central Intelligence Agency had
to offer President Bush. Senior officials at the CIAs Directorate of
Science and Technology began to accept and vouch for Montgomery
to officials at the highest levels of the government. Montgomerys
claims grew ever more expansive, but that only solidified his position
inside the national security arena. His technology became too
impossible to disbelieve.
105.
As libel by implication, Risen imply that Montgomery committed fraud and is a
con man.
106.
Thirty-Seventh, on Page 40 of the Book, Risen writes:

Montgomery persuaded the spy agency that his special computer
technology could detect hidden bar codes broadcast on Al Jazeera,
which had been embedded into the video feed by al Qaeda. Allegedly,
al Qaeda was using that secret method to send messages to its terrorist
operatives around the world about plans for new attacks. Montgomery
convinced the CIA that his technology had uncovered a series of
26

83
hidden letters and numbers that appeared to be coded messages about

specific airline flights that the terrorists were targeting.
107.
As libel by implication, Risen imply that Montgomery convinced the CIA of
claims that are not (were not) true.

108.
Thirty-Eighth, on Page 42 of the Book, Risen writes:

Based on Montgomerys information, President Bush ordered the
grounding of a series of international flights scheduled to fly into the
United States. This step caused disruptions for thousands of
travelers.
109.
As libel by implication, Risen imply that Montgomery convinced President Bush
and the national command authority of conclusions drawn from Montgomerys work.
110.
Thirty-Ninth, on Page 42 of the Book, Risen writes:

One former senior CIA official recalled attending a White House
meeting in the week following Christmas to discuss what to do next
about the information coming from Montgomery. The official claims that
there was a brief but serious discussion about whether to shoot down
commercial airliners over the Atlantic based on the intelligence.
111.
As libel by implication, Risen imply that Montgomery convinced President Bush
and the national command authority of conclusions drawn from Montgomerys work.
112.
Fortieth, on Page 47 of the Book, Risen writes:

Even more stunning, after the debacle over the bogus Christmas
2003 terrorist threats, Montgomery kept getting classified government
contracts awarded through several different corporate entities.
Montgomerys problems with the CIA did not stop him from peddling
variations of his technology to one government agency after another.
The secrecy that surrounded his work once again worked in his favor.
CIA officials were reluctant to tell their Pentagon counterparts much
about their experiences with Montgomery, so Defense Department
officials apparently did not realize that his technology was considered
suspect at CIA headquarters.
27

83
113.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery continued to defraud,
con, and scam the government, rather than concluding that the U.S. Government recognized the
legitimacy of Montgomerys work.
114.
Forty-First, on Page 48 of the Book, Risen writes:

He successfully infused a sense of mystery around himself. He was
like the Wizard of Oz, but now people were beginning to try to
examine the man behind the curtain.
115.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that the Montgomery engaged in fraud and
a hoax by keeping details mysterious.

116.
Forty-Second, on Page 48 of the Book, Risen writes:

The technology didnt meet the requirements for us, said a Special
Operations Command spokesman drily. Still, there is no evidence that
officials at Special Operations Command ever talked with their
counterparts at the CIA to check up on Montgomery before awarding
him a contract. Special Operations Command paid a total of $ 9.6
million to eTreppid under its contract with the firm.
117.
As libel by implication, Risen imply that Montgomery again repeated his fraud
and hoax against a new government agency.

118.
Forty-Third, on Page 54 of the Book, in the Chapter The New Oligarchs,
Risen writes:
CHAPTER 3: The New Oligarchs
Page 54: Dennis Montgomery is, of course, an extreme example of
the new kind of counterterrorism entrepreneur who prospered in the
shadows of 9/11. But he was hardly alone in recognizing the lucrative
business opportunities that the war on terror has presented. In fact, as
trillions of dollars have poured into the nations new homeland
security-industrial complex, the corporate leaders at its vanguard can
rightly be considered the true winners of the war on terror.
119.
As libel by implication, Risen implies that Montgomery engaged in fraud and a
hoax motivated by greed.
28

Montgomery V Risen #63 - P Opp To Motion To Dismiss - S.D.fla. - 1-15-Cv-20782 - 63 - P Opp To Motion To Dismiss W ExA&M

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Montgomery V Risen #63 - P Opp To Motion To Dismiss - S.D.fla. - 1-15-Cv-20782 - 63 - P Opp To Motion To Dismiss W ExA&M

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 1 of 51

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 2 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 3 of 51

Plaintiff. Exhibit A 7-53.

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 4 of 51

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 5 of 51

The publisher, Defendant Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, maintains

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 6 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 7 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 8 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 9 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 10 of 51

See Amended Complaint 134. On Page 40 of the Book, Defendants knowingly

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 11 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 12 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 13 of 51

FACTS AND LAW SHOWING PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND AGAINST

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 14 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 15 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 16 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 17 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 18 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 19 of 51

of physical products in commerce within Florida.

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 20 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 21 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 22 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 23 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 24 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 25 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 26 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 27 of 51

Maryland. No entity at issue is located in the District of Columbia!

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 28 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 29 of 51

STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A 12(b)(6) MOTION

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 30 of 51

PLAINTIFF STATED A VALID CLAIM

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 31 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 32 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 33 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 34 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 35 of 51

Defendants Statements Amount to Defamation by Implication

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 36 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 37 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 38 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 39 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 40 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 41 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 42 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 43 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 44 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 45 of 51

See Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1293 n. 12

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 46 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 47 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 48 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 49 of 51

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2015 Page 50 of 51

Dated: June 1, 2015