“WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE?”
by Sharon Rondeau
In late 2013, Montgomery approached then-Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to report that he had evidence showing that more than 150,000 bank accounts of Maricopa County residents had been breached by a government entity. Arpaio subsequently hired Montgomery to produce the data he claimed to have, appointing Obama birth-certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo to oversee the project.
For an undisclosed and bewildering reason, in recent months The American Report‘s Mary Fanning and Alan Jones have aimed derogatory and false accusations at Zullo and this writer, labeling them, respectively, “liar,” “con man,” and “a tool” of former CIA Director John Brennan. Given that Fanning and this writer once communicated infrequently but cordially, the transformation is striking and appears to have occurred in conjunction with Fanning’s aggressive promotion of former NSA and CIA contractor Dennis L. Montgomery as a government “whistleblower.“
At the same time, Fanning has attempted to communicate inaccurate information on government surveillance to President Trump; Sidney Powell, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s (Ret) current attorney; and Flynn’s brother, Joseph, who is managing a fund for his brother’s legal defense stemming from the Russia “collusion” narrative which ensnared him in a criminal prosecution by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
On November 30, 2017, Flynn entered a “guilty” plea on one count of lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. Powell, who was retained to represent Flynn in June, now claims that exculpatory information pertaining to her client has been withheld by the government and that the case against Flynn should be dismissed.
Flynn’s sentencing date has been significantly postponed several times by Judge Emmet Sullivan, most recently last week until after the release on December 9 of the DOJ inspector general’s report on possible abuse of the FISA application process in regard to one or more former Trump campaign advisers.
Some of Fanning’s recent disparaging and unprovoked comments toward Zullo and this writer include:
This writer has not communicated with Fanning or Jones since March 14, 2017. In July, Zullo sent a “cease and desist” email to Fanning stemming from her inaccurate reporting and potentially legally-actionable statements invoking his name to which he said he received no response.
Since June, Fanning, Jones, and former NSA program directors J. Kirk Wiebe and William Binney have appeared on Dr. Dave Janda’s “Operation Freedom” touting Montgomery as a credible source of information on government surveillance in direct contradiction to a report Wiebe signed in November 2014 contending that Montgomery had placed nothing of value, on an intelligence basis, on 47 hard drives delivered by Zullo and Det. Brian Mackiewicz for analysis on behalf of the MCSO.
In March 2017, Fanning and Jones were seeking information from Zullo and this writer about “The Hammer,” said to be a super-computer constructed by Montgomery and used to spy on then-businessman Donald Trump, other prominent businessmen and media personalities, and government officials such as federal judges over a number of years.
In addition, Fanning and Jones report, “The Hammer” is the technology that was used to conduct surveillance on the 2016 Trump campaign by the U.S. intelligence community, namely, by Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper beginning in February 2009.
Neither Clapper nor Brennan occupied his respective position in the Obama administration at that time. It is unlikely, Zullo told The Post & Email, that technology developed in 2004 and purportedly utilized in 2009 by the government as Montgomery alleges, would be effective to defeat current anti-intrusion systems. “It is inconceivable that a decade-old technology would still be effective in 2015 and beyond,” Zullo said.
Zullo had first mentioned ”The Hammer” in a radio interview in late 2015 following his testimony in Melendres, a civil-rights case brought against Arpaio in federal court. At that time, Zullo testified as to the information Montgomery had provided during his year working as a confidential informant for the MCSO.
Fanning and Jones have failed to disclose that they were not the first to report Montgomery’s claims, which have continued to evolve over time. Discrediting history not reported by Fanning, Jones, Wiebe and Binney includes a 2008 claim Montgomery made that then-U.S. Congressman and Nevada gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons accepted bribes from Montgomery’s then-estranged business partner, Warren Trepp. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated after a yearlong FBI investigation.
Likewise, in a retaliatory effort, an MCSO Internal Affairs (IA) investigation launched in 2016 as a result of Montgomery’s frivolous allegation that Zullo threatened him in a text message was dismissed without any action, and a complaint filed with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) in August naming this writer as an abuser of a “vulnerable adult” was dismissed in early September as unsubstantiated.
As is exhaustively documented here, Montgomery has a 40-year history of litigation as both plaintiff and defendant and is currently a defendant in a criminal case stemming from an unpaid gambling debt incurred in Las Vegas in 2008. All defendants are constitutionally innocent until proven guilty.
Stated plainly, Montgomery has never produced proof of his claims and did not claim the role of “whistleblower” until he left government service in 2010 and after former CIA contractor Edward Snowden made his revelations about government surveillance in June 2013.
In an August 1, 2019 interview with Kevin Shipp and Jason Goodman, Zullo explained in detail that in 2014, Arpaio felt compelled to investigate Montgomery’s claims of government data-collection on more than 150,000 Maricopa County residents. Early that year, Arpaio hired Montgomery as a confidential informant to transfer the data he said he possessed onto hard drives with the expectation that they would be turned over to federal law-enforcement for investigation.
Between October 2013 and January 2014, and with his acknowledgement, Zullo both audio- and video-recorded Montgomery’s conversations with Arpaio, Mackiewicz and himself alleging widespread government surveillance. However, this year, Montgomery claimed to The American Report and this writer that he was recorded “illegally,” with Fanning and Jones oft repeating the meritless claim without contacting Zullo for comment.
As Zullo was overseeing Montgomery’s work on a day-to-day basis in 2014, he made arrangements for Montgomery to appear before U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in Washington, DC. On August 1, 2014, Zullo and Mackiewicz met Montgomery; his then-attorney, Larry Klayman, and another man outside of the courthouse, where Zullo captured photographs of the event. In their reporting, Fanning and Jones have not credited Zullo as the source of the photos nor of the information in their first “Hammer” report dated March 17, 2017.
The “Whistleblower Tapes,” which Fanning and Jones have erroneously claimed were released by the judge presiding over Melendres, were actually leaked to The Phoenix New Times by the ACLU, Zullo said, and were never intended for public consumption. Zullo has also noted that the initial recordings he made of Montgomery associate Tim Blixseth’s claims made to the MCSO contain “nothing more than hearsay due to the fact Blixseth himself was conveying information he obtained from Montgomery and he did not possess any firsthand knowledge of the matter.” Zullo contends that Fanning’s insistence on promoting the recordings as verified and factual is “remarkably misleading.“
Prior to the interview with Lamberth, Zullo arranged for Montgomery to engage in a “free talk” with then-Arizona Attorney General Tom Horn and
for Montgomery to have legal counsel provided at no cost to him, Zullo said. Montgomery made a number of representations and promises during his free talk, Zullo said, and agreed to produce supporting evidence but failed to do so, thereby failing to fulfill the conditions of his agreement. “In other words, Montgomery breached his own immunity agreement with the state of Arizona, again failing to produce the data he claimed he had,” Zullo told The Post & Email. “Failing to produce as represented proves to be a recurring theme documented in Montgomery’s legal history.”
During the latter part of 2015, according to Klayman, Montgomery testified twice in a secure facility to two FBI agents, Walter Giardina and William Bennett, under respective immunity agreements, one for “production” and the other for “testimony.” It is unknown what the FBI did with the information Montgomery provided, whether or not it was investigated or if any of Montgomery’s information was even useful or credible.
Other claims Montgomery has made remain unsubstantiated as evidenced in a 2015 lawsuit wherein as plaintiff, he failed to produce the software which author and defendant James Risen wrote did not function as Montgomery claimed. In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled in Risen’s favor, as did a three-judge appellate panel in 2017. It must be noted that the FBI has not contacted Montgomery since, nor did the DOJ intervene in the case to place any type of restrictive order on Montgomery.
During an October 31 interview with former CIA officer Kevin Shipp, “Crowdsource the Truth” host Jason Goodman, and this writer, Zullo supplied a video depicting Montgomery fully aware of the video-recording in progress as he spoke to Mackiewicz. During the recording Montgomery clearly states, looking at the camera, “Just make sure you don’t get my grandkids on there…” (47:20-48:09). This video evidence soundly defeats Fanning’s claim that Montgomery was “illicitly” recorded.
Initially, Zullo said, Montgomery provided “verifiable” data to the MCSO on six thumb drives, which lent credibility to his claims of government surveillance of Maricopa County residents. As time went on, however, Zullo came to believe that the data Montgomery was placing on 47 hard drives was not what had been purported and obtained approval from Arpaio to seek out experts who could verify the drives’ contents.
Zullo ultimately located three former high-level NSA analysts, J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney and Thomas Drake, who agreed to examine the hard drives at their location on the East Coast. In November 2014, Zullo and Mackiewicz drove across the country with the 47 hard drives, meeting with the three twice before they conducted their examination of the drives.
As The Post & Email documented in numerous articles over the summer, Zullo recalls informing the analysts that Montgomery was the subject of a 2006 State Secrets Privilege (SSP) invocation by then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and that, according to Montgomery, he was read into a Special Access Program (SAP) while working as a government contractor. The SSP came about as a result of Montgomery’s co-ownership of eTreppid, a business arrangement which soured in January 2006 and led to business partner Warren Trepp suing Montgomery in Nevada state court and Montgomery counter-suing Trepp in federal court.
Zullo said before making the trip that he asked Montgomery to place all of his credentials, particularly those involving his work for the government, on one of the hard drives for the analysts to review.
Zullo considers the Negroponte protective order, as well as articles in The New York Times and other publications released prior to 2012, as corroborative of Montgomery’s claim to have been in certain places at certain times as a government contractor. Montgomery included this and other information on the requested drive for review by Binney, Wiebe and Drake, Zullo informed us.
Binney was not present the entire time during which the analysis was performed, Zullo recalled, and did not sign the report produced on November 13, 2014. Although present, Mackiewicz became ill with food poisoning, Zullo said, necessitating that Zullo interact with the former analysts almost exclusively.
Drake and Wiebe stated in the report that the hard drives contained no classified information and “fake code files.” In an email prefacing the report sent the following day to then-MCSO Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan, Drake wrote of Montgomery, “We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD.”
The report concludes with Wiebe and Drake’s assessment that the data contained on the hard drives was “evidence of an outright and fraudulent con perpetrated on the government for personal gain and cover.” Zullo told The Post & Email that he was surprised at the language Wiebe and Drake employed in what he would have expected to be no more than a factual and dispassionate analysis of the hard drives’ contents. “They were never asked to assess Montgomery’s motive or character; they were asked to simply review the evidence he supplied,” Zullo said.
In email communications exchanged with this writer over the summer, Wiebe asserted that the wording of the report was Drake’s; however, it appears Wiebe signed the report without protest.
In a series of interviews beginning in June, Wiebe and Binney told Janda that they believe Montgomery’s claims should be investigated, a finding with which Zullo agrees. In an email exchange on September 30 with this writer, Wiebe indicated that neither he nor Binney knew for certain if Montgomery possessed classified information at that time.
In a dramatic shift, during an October 28 interview with Janda, Wiebe and Binney vehemently defended Montgomery as “the real deal” after Wiebe claimed to have spoken with Montgomery for the first time the night before, a claim Zullo contends is not factual.
Based on Fanning and Jones’s claim that Zullo “misled” Wiebe and Binney about Montgomery’s history in 2014, Janda declined to host Zullo on his show.
Zullo has repeatedly stressed that Montgomery failed to produce any evidence that he worked on “The Hammer”; that he was asked to alter Florida voter rolls, as he claimed; or that Brennan and Clapper were personally involved in illegal data-collection as Fanning and Jones have asserted. Despite that, Zullo has stressed that Montgomery’s claims should be investigated and that he “has a story to tell.” Zullo also advised that “even a con man has pearls of truth baked into the anatomy of the con, and those pearls of truth need to be investigated.“ Zullo also observed that “over and over for 40 years Montgomery has proven to be a less-than-truthful individual.“ Zullo points to a well-documented legal history and real-time 2014 emails, turned over to a federal court, among Det. Mackiewicz, Zullo, Klayman and Montgomery that document that point.
In response to Wiebe and Binney’s changed stance on Montgomery, Zullo observed:
I am astounded by the unabashed reversal and contradiction after performing a detailed forensic analysis of the evidence provided by Montgomery that they themselves found to be fictitious, and they now attempt to distance themselves from their own findings. In the process, they have successfully discredited themselves and their own work product and impeached their own credibility. It is beyond me how they can now issue outright declarations of Montgomery’s credibility where absolutely none exists.
In 2014, Wiebe had a 45-minute conversation with Montgomery and me; I initiated the call. I released that information publicly in 2015 and 2016, and if my memory serves, I testified to that in federal court. Wiebe contends that he never spoke with Montgomery until late October 2019. This is patently false. I had both of them on a conference call for 45 minutes. At the conclusion of the call Wiebe told me he believed Montgomery was the “real deal,” only to call him a fraud in writing some weeks later, after careful review of 47 hard drives of worthless information provided by Montgomery.
The second prevarication: they now state they never knew about Negroponte and the State Secrets Privilege. This is false. Both Mackiewicz and I told them that Montgomery was SSP’d when we met with them initially seeking their assistance. We didn’t have the document at that time, but they were advised, “This is why we thought there might be something to Montgomery’s story.” This was also public information at the time. The government would not have put that restriction on him in 2006 if he was not working for them in some capacity. In addition, none of them knew of Montgomery or The Hammer at the time we first interacted with them. None of them could substantiate even the existence of “The Hammer.” All of them had been released from government service some eight years prior to the creation of “The Hammer,” if it ever was created.
The Negroponte document was on the drive assembled by Montgomery himself. And why wouldn’t it be? It is Montgomery’s shining star. That document, along with others and government email correspondence, was on the drive that we took to Wiebe’s home to have them analyze all of Montgomery’s correspondence and supportive information.
We asked Montgomery to put together a drive of all pertinent documents supporting his claims and his employment documentation. Negroponte’s SSP came up; I was sitting next to Kirk when it did. It was there, and they said, “John Negroponte.” They recognized the name; they knew the name. I did not know the name, and all I said to them was, “Yeah, that’s the State Secrets Privilege,” and we confirmed it happened. With that, they continued on. Neither Wiebe nor Drake appeared very impressed with it at the time; it was a non-event.
Discovered on this very same drive were framed-up and fictitious emails Montgomery offered up as evidentiary proof that he was dialoguing with government officials. However, upon closer inspection Wiebe and Drake discovered the address information was misspelled and incorrect, which would have caused the email to bounce back to the sender, except it did not and received a framed-up response. The only problem in the response was the address information was still incorrect in the reply. This simply could not happen and was identified in their report as fictitious among others to the Sheriff’s Office.
Accusations of fictitious emails being created by Montgomery have been documented in prior legal proceedings. Montgomery has been suspected on more than one occasion of concocting falsified evidence to support his claims. Additionally a federal judge found that Montgomery had perjured himself in federal testimony. Truthfulness is not his strong suit. To take Montgomery’s claims at face value is a fool’s errand, something Fanning and company appear to be way too comfortable in doing. WHY?
Wiebe now says that had they known about the SSP, their analysis would have been different. This is astounding. I can’t believe these men would make such a claim. How does that claim reconcile with the fictitious 47 hard drives they reviewed in a sealed evidence box collected some six months prior to their analyses? Knowing the back story or not, this simply does not change the evidence in the box. The evidence must stand on its own and it didn’t; it was all a fraud as noted in Wiebe and Drake’s signed report. This contrived, distorted recollection of facts has zero bearing on the contents and final
e analysis and of 47 fictitious hard drives manufactured by Montgomery. As far as I’m concerned, this type of outright duplicity defiles both Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe’s own reputations and credibility. It defies all reason and investigational logic.
For some unknown reason Fanning, Jones, Wiebe, Binney and Janda have all purposely omitted any and all derogatory information pertaining to Montgomery from their reporting. They have purposely failed to interview any fact witness as to the wiles of Dennis Montgomery and disregarded first-hand accounts or documented court evidence that run counter to their ringing endorsement of Montgomery. In doing so they willingly deceive their readers and viewers and are blatantly attempting to mislead even the President of the United States.
Both Binney and Wiebe have been out of government service for almost 20 years now. Their claims are 20 years old and have been public just as long. The difference between Binney and Wiebe’s claims is their claims are true, they were NSA employees. It is so surprising to me that they would destroy their own reputations over such unsubstantiated claims as Montgomery’s. Montgomery’s claims on the other hand, for the most part are not substantiated at all. His claims of building technology that would breach a network firewall and retrieve information without being detected dates back to January 28, 2004, when Montgomery allegedly completed a product called MEDUSA to carry out the task while in the employ of eTreppid. To date Montgomery has failed to produce any corroborating evidence of his claims.
Suspiciously, Montgomery made his first allegation of illegal spying in 2013, only after Edward Snowden released NSA information to the public. Montgomery had never made even the slightest overture of illegal surveillance activity prior to the Snowden release. He has yet to provide any evidence to substantiate his claim. It should also be noted that MCSO investigators had observed Montgomery attempting to interject himself into current events, always pointing back to him and The Hammer. If it was in the news Montgomery now had a new story and claimed to have information about it, much like he is doing with the Flynn case.
In 2013, Montgomery claimed he left eTreppid because of illegal surveillance, but that’s not supported by the 2006 court records, which say he was fighting over different software applications and ownership of the same. This case ultimately settled without one mention of illegal surveillance,or other projects. The settlement was not to Montgomery’s favor. He had to pay over 20 million dollars to eTreppid, but never did and declared bankruptcy shortly after. I think when you settle and have to pay millions, it’s safe to say you lost.
Montgomery has never produced any evidence that his claimed 2004 MEDUSA breaching software was ever successfully developed or that it even worked, almost a decade and a half later and he has yet to prove any of it.
After leaving eTreppid Montgomery was out of government service for 3+ years, Montgomery reappeared in early 2009. At that time, a new company, BLXWARE, had entered into a contract with the federal government at a secret facility in Fort Washington, Maryland, according to Montgomery. Montgomery claims the U.S. government purchased a $5 million super-computer that was made up of high-end Tesla supercomputers, that the feds named this computer the HAMMER and illegal surveillance again took place. He claims the HAMMER went live on February 5, 2009, He claims MEDUSA was operating in that computer system. which is again are claims that cannot be substantiated.
By his own timeline he claims to have performed government surveillance work for the 24 months of his employment with eTreppid, and was out of government service for three years, didn’t go back to government employment until 2009 and then quit in 2010,yet he wants you to believe he was at the center of illegal surveillance.
Montgomery told Sheriff’s Office investigators that during 2009–2010 he removed over four hundred hard drives which collected and recorded “billions” of collected records from the Fort Washington facility. Keep in mind Montgomery now claims he has only 600 million records. He turned over only 47 fictitious hard drives to the Sheriff’s Office that were absolute garbage and he turned over only 47 hard drives to the FBI. So where are the remaining drives still in his possession?
He also told us that in the spring of 2010 the U.S. government decided to allow him to collect information for the HAMMER outside their building. He claimed the government was becoming concerned that the work being conducted could be leaking out. He claimed the government purchased a $12,000-per-month VPN line into the Hammer.
According to him he was able to monitor the HAMMER and download the data at will, remotely! It should be noted that it is also during this time frame when he alleges he illegally and covertly removed over 400 hard drives of downloaded information retrieved by this government computer and retained it for his own purposes. Again another claim that cannot be substantiated; however, it should be very alarming if true. Here you have a guy with a very lengthy litigation history, arrested on fraud-related charges only months before and reports of him conning the Pentagon and other government officials only three years earlier and now claiming he has access to a Top Secret government computer and can do anything at will from his living room. Again his MEDUSA claims have never been corroborated. As a matter of fact none of Montgomery’s government software claims have been validated in over 20 years even though he said he has the data to prove it all. He never proved any of it.
So Montgomery worked as a subcontractor, not a CIA employee. He was not an inside guy. Yet he claims he was involved in this illegal surveillance operation and he was at the center of it all. However, he provides zero credible evidence of its existence or operational data to support his claim. If you listen to Montgomery he paints himself as the CIA incarnate, he knows everything about everything, reminiscent of Walther Mitty.
In a new twist Wiebe claims Montgomery is the “real deal” after one phone call and pretends his analysis of Montgomery’s evidence was somehow tainted because he didn’t know something about Montgomery’s past. Montgomery could have been an altar boy or the devil himself and that would not have changed the evidence Wiebe reviewed or the conclusion he reached. It was all a fraud! Wiebe seems to also have difficulty recalling the numerous phone conversations he and I had in the years after the Montgomery case closed in 2015. In those conversations Montgomery’s SSP and other issues of his lack of credibility were discussed at length. Wiebe never altered his view on Montgomery or his findings until Mary Fanning got a hold of him. Once she did the factual history has now changed. WHY?
Montgomery was an employee of a company doing subcontract work of the government. He was not an employee of the CIA, NSA, DOD or any government agency. Montgomery’s story is very convincing when he tells it. He tells it under the cover of Governmental Privileged Information, the cloak of security clearances that he claims has but doesn’t. He believes this will prevent anyone from challenging his narrative. However, when you dig into him and his story, it all falls apart. Falsified documents, lies, changing stories, fraudulent data, manipulated records and evidence, sabotage, fraudulent representations, criminal history of fraud, restraining orders, sexual harassment complaints, gambling debts, perjury allegations, and the list go on.
All of this was encountered by investigators in 2014 while working with Montgomery. This is what Fanning does not want you to know about. This is who Kirk Wiebe and Bill Binney call the “real deal” and stake their reputations on. This is the secret Fanning does not want told. This is why she attempts to discredit me and anyone who reports on his troubled background.
Mary Fanning just wants you to swallow Montgomery’s story, hook, line and sinker and report it in such a way as to portray all his claims as undeniable fact. Fanning is not behaving like a reporter but rather, as Montgomery’s PR person and a well-used dupe.
This is not only the height of intellectual dishonesty, but it is downright dangerous to the futures of individuals and the nation as a whole to try to interject Montgomery’s tale of woe and his unsubstantiated story into current litigation such as that involving Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret), the Russia Collusion Hoax and anything else that Montgomery finds as the flavor of the day. Montgomery and his story is a train wreck that just doesn’t stop crashing. To inject Montgomery into any legal proceeding will derail the entire defense, including in the Flynn case and Russia collusion narrative. Montgomery was out of the contracting business since 2010. How could he have any relevant knowledge of operations taking place in 2015 and beyond? The answer is he can’t. And Fanning, it would appear, is just not smart enough to put that together.
The biggest problem with all of this, they are taking the word of Dennis Montgomery as if it is gospel truth, then regurgitating it plus trying to connect dots off of it. It’s like the problem you have with a logical discussion: if your foundational premise is wrong, your conclusion ends up being wrong. He does have a story to tell, but it’s just a story, and until it’s proven out by substantial factual evidence, it is nothing more than just a story. His story has been inconsistent over time, and timelines that he puts forth absolutely do not work by his own prior admissions., If you are to believe his story at all he spent a limited amount of time around illegal surveillance yet he wants you to believe he and he alone was at the epicenter of everything going on. He and Fanning want you to believe without him none of this could have happened. They want you to believe he developed the most powerful breaching software known to man and after a decade later it still has no equal. They want you to believe that time has stopped and the federal government is at a standstill because Dennis Montgomery no longer works for them so the software cannot be improved, or something else that is superior has yet to be created. And in true Montgomery fashion he just wants to say it and you are to believe it without question and no evidence that any of it works.
The deliberate omission of any derogatory information is intellectually and journalistically dishonest. The question is, Mary Fanning, “Why? Are you perhaps doing it for your own notoriety?” Money? Are you some kind of half-baked operative? Why not just do you job right and report the facts?
Montgomery frauded the Sheriff’s Office and produced 47 fake and phony hard drives, a story Mary Fanning tried her best to surgically remove from the public eye. She failed. Yet she wants you to believe every word that Montgomery speaks. Question: what makes you, Mary Fanning, think Montgomery will not play you as he does everyone else?
It has been my experience working with Montgomery if he believes he can further his agenda the story changes and he will all of a sudden come up with a new tale of illegal spying and the Hammer, even if the time frame is well outside of his purported participation. Case in point: Montgomery cannot have any direct knowledge or evidence of the Trump Tower or Flynn wiretaps for one simple reason: he has not been a government contractor since 2010. So how does he have any evidence that the Hammer or any other “parallel platform” was used? The simple answer is he doesn’t, but Fanning and Janda will not ask the hard questions. Why?…Don’t they owe it to their readers to ask the questions?
The truth is they can’t because they are now trapped in Montgomery’s snare. They wanted all of this to be so true and now find themselves so heavily invested they have to hope it all works out, and if it does not they will just move on to the next tale they decide to tell you and hope you don’t notice.
Mary Fanning, what evidence do you have to support what Dennis Montgomery is telling you?
The answer…You have NONE!