by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 4, 2022) — As an extension to an established biographical website, former government subcontractor Dennis Montgomery has established a dedicated new page to an endeavor titled, “Operation Checkmate.”

As per its url, the site appears to be hosted by internet radio host Peter Santilli and opens to yet another WordPress website,, subtitled, “The Facts & Truth About Dennis Montgomery.”

As of this writing, parts of the webpage remain under construction, while others at the parent site require a login for access.

Santilli appears to have become an advocate and spokesman for Montgomery, as evidenced by the “Contact Us” page containing his name and those of two other broadcasters of a show called, “The Big Mig.” Santilli is also an associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, whose attorneys on August 20 filed a Motion to Intervene in a federal case Montgomery had brought against his onetime business partner, Warren Trepp, in 2006.

In the Motion, Lindell expressed the belief that Montgomery possesses evidence which would prove exculpatory to Lindell in a defamation suit lodged against him by Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., after Lindell claimed the company’s voting equipment was responsible for changing votes en masse in the 2020 election from President Donald J. Trump to Democrat challenger Joe Biden.

Returning from its summer recess, on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Lindell’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that Dominion could proceed with its lawsuit.

Montgomery has been a plaintiff or defendant in numerous lawsuits since 1987 and last year sued an FBI special agent, Michael West, and other government agents who conducted searches of his property in March 2006 seeking “classified” information Trepp claimed Montgomery took from the company they launched in 1998, eTreppid, when Montgomery made an unexpected departure in early January 2006.

In order to obtain a search warrant, West provided a sworn affidavit to the magistrate overseeing Montgomery’s case against Trepp, Valerie P. Cooke, which she later found deficient, excoriating West and the Bureau for failing to present all the evidence and for allegedly violating Montgomery’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Approximately three years later, however, Cooke would find Montgomery to have perjured himself during testimony and referred him to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution, an action never undertaken since Montgomery’s case against Trepp and Trepp’s countersuit settled.

On Monday, September 26, The Post & Email contacted Santilli and the two associates listed on “Operation Checkmate” to ask how Santilli came to host the website. Our email reads:

Hello, Mr. Santilli, I have been investigating and reporting on issues surrounding former government subcontractor Dennis Montgomery for more than seven years, publishing literally hundreds of articles researched via court documents, firsthand interviews and other public records.

I note Montgomery and you have launched a new endeavor, “Operation Checkmate,” apparently hosted by you or a domain entity you own.  I plan on writing about the website, a link from which now leads to an independent “Operation Checkmate” site, but would like to speak with you first prior to publishing.

A full compendium of articles at my publication involving Mr. Montgomery can be found here:

Please let me know when you might be available.

Thank you very much.

Sharon Rondeau, Editor/Owner
The Post & Email

Having received no response, on Wednesday we contacted Santilli at the email address posted on Operation Checkmate:

Hello, Mr. Santilli, I don’t know if you received my first email sent to a different address, but I wanted to make sure you are aware that much of the information posted on Dennis Montgomery’s “Operation Checkmate” website is inaccurate, incomplete or unproved/unprovable. 

Apparently a service you use or provide is hosting the site.

For instance, in his “Chronology” page, Montgomery reports that then-Fox News journalist Carl Cameron interviewed and video-recorded him demonstrating evidence of illegal government surveillance.  While that is accurate, Montgomery omits the fact that Cameron never ran the story because Montgomery never produced the evidence he claimed to have, a pattern which is many years in the making.  At about the same time he contacted Cameron, Montgomery approached the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office with similar claims, was hired as a paid confidential informant, then never provided the evidence he claimed to have.  A scathing report was issued by two former NSA analysts on the “evidence” Montgomery ultimately produced, and in 2016, a federal judge wrote in an opinion that Montgomery committed “fraud” against the MCSO.

I am copying the two other contact people listed on the website in the event they are not aware of these facts.  I have been reporting on developments surrounding Montgomery for more than seven years, publishing literally hundreds of articles supported by public records and court transcripts.  A full catalog of articles is found here:

Several years ago, Mr. Montgomery contacted me to ask that I produce “positive” news stories about him, which is what he might be seeking through “Checkmate” and you.

As stated before, I am going to report on “Operation Checkmate” but wanted to alert and speak with you first if at all possible.  My press date is Monday, October 1.

Thank you very much.

Sharon Rondeau, Editor/Owner
The Post & Email

We then sent an email correcting “Monday, October 1” to “Monday, October 3.”

On Thursday, we received the following response:


Thanks for reaching out, but before I address your incorrect assertion about the Carl Cameron information, please allow me to inform you who I am, and how I have come to know the validity of Dennis Montgomery’s information.

Before it became “trendy” to attack Dennis Montgomery, I became aware of Mr. Montgomery back in Dec 2018/ Fan 2019 through one of the NSA Whistleblowers you’ve referenced.   Montgomery’s name was given to me because (a) we had the same attorney Larry Klayman  (b) we bother had our cases (Bundy cases) and Montgomery’s case sabotaged.  

Based on the information I received from one of the most credible — actually unimpeachable former NSA officials — in 2019 I included the name “Dennis Montgomery” as a potential witness in my 1200 page (with evidence & attachments) State bar complaint against attorney Larry Klayman.   I was specific about what I learned from the NSA whistleblower —  that he was “Edward Snowden times 100…because he had indisputable evidence of crimes against the United States of America that he turned over to the federal government..and his attorney screwed things up.”

We certainly appreciate you perusing our draft notations on the “Operation Checkmate” website, but please be advised that your assertion that Mr. Montgomery “omits the fact that Cameron never ran the story because Montgomery never produced the evidence he claimed to have” is simply not true.  Additionally, your definitive statement regarding “a scathing report about two former NSA analysts” leaves out very important facts, events and details which occurred at a later date.  Essentially, your statement abruptly stops short of the full story and truth, which is why I strongly encourage you to follow our progress as we counter the very sophisticated influence operation you are obviously either victim of, or an active participant in.  We will make that determination as you publish your partially informed reports in the future.

The core essence of Operation Checkmate was born of information I developed independently well before most people know of the name Dennis Montgomery.  Well before I met Mike Lindell; well before the 2020 election; well before any of the nonsense I have observed on the internet attacking the validity of Dennis Montgomery’s info.  I have zero incentive to advance any agenda, and even less incentive to weigh in on a topic that could potentially destroy my credibility as a journalist who spent 619 days as a political prisoner defeating the deep state in 2 federal trials, and especially having first hand knowledge of the powerful surveillance capabilities of the U.S. Government.  I was personally subjected to the criminal / unconstitutional surveillance perpetrated by the Obama administration towards their political opponents, and the information they obtained was maliciously used to reverse engineer my false indictment.  They failed miserably.  In fact, they got caught red handed entrapping patriots, malicious prosecution, warrantless surveillance, and withholding exculpatory information.  At the time I was exposed to their sources and methods through our discovery, I had no idea who Dennis Montgomery was, but I can ensure you that the work he performed as a contractor, the system he designed as a computer programmer, and the secret / private entity he operated within under very evil people such as John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey was used as a weapon against individuals like me who set out to defeat these communist technocrats.

Again, bear in mind that as a defendant in one of the most high profile criminal cases in our nation’s history — which I was instrumental in winning 2 federal trials, I have in my possession detailed information that will prove that your blurty inaccurate assertions are either based on sheer ignorance, intentional, or merely a component of achieving website revenue with click bait.  

You have a right to publish your report, but I will unequivocally state that I have a right to dig deeper into your motives.  Part of Operation Checkmate is to flesh out the operatives who have been intentionally deceiving the public to divert away from the facts which will soon be revealed.  Dennis Montgomery possesses evidence of crimes against the United States of America, and he has done everything to expose crimes with indisputable forensic evidence, and has even given evidence 7 testimony under oath to federal authorities.  In October, a judge in Nevada has the opportunity to lift the protective order concealing those crimes.

If your internet publishing outlet intends to publish a report on October 1 based on partially available and inaccurate information, I would like to advise you that I’ll consider you to be one of the “operators” tasked with covering up and/or muddling the true facts about Dennis Montgomery’s evidence.  If you are sincere in your quest for the truth, than I encourage to join us in learning & telling the full story to the public.  A very important part of the story is exposing the media operations serving the intelligence agency’s efforts to suppress Dennis Montgomery’s information.  

Please allow me quadruple down.  If Dennis Montgomery is lying, or a fraud, or is disputed factually by others within the intelligence community — as so many “operators” have falsely alleged — then I will make every effort to have him prosecuted for committing perjury to the federal courts, the FBI, the DOJ, and the federal gannets & investigators at the DC Bar (which Dennis Montgomery and I both share in common, but independently) .  Based on what I know, he will NOT be prosecuted, because he has submitted evidence and sworn testimony to each of them, and they have a duty to make it public.   You, as a journalist have a duty to not obstruct justice, so please conduct yourself accordingly because I fully intend to hold those who have participated in this intel operation accountable as well.  Although I can’t speak for my colleagues, I’m sure they share the same goals and sentiment.  You will have to speak with them directly for commentary.

Please consider this a formal notification that if you publish your report with any incomplete, inaccurate or deceptive information, you will be held accountable.  Be accurate. Be truthful, or be advised: I will put you on blast for being part of the cover-up of crimes against our country.  I’ve gone up against the Deep State & won in 2 federal trials…the DOJ…the FBI…. Hillary Clinton….I was arrested in 2016 after Loretta Lynch signed my arrest warrant 10 hours after I reported to millions of people that the Clinton Foundation took in over 130 million dollars from representatives connected to Uranium One.  Please trust that I will have zero fear or hesitation in going after any irresponsible blogger for intentionally deceiving the public…so please don’t be one of them.  Dennis Montgomery is merely a messenger who is secondary to the facts that crimes have been committed against our country.  

My language is strong, but I won’t apologize because this is the most serious and consequential story of our entire lives.  If you truly believe that Dennis Montgomery is a fraud or decepticon, then lets join together to have him put in jail forever — he is on record with every federal agency on the planet, and if he is lying to all of them, he will go to jail for a long long time (I can confidently say he won’t …  I assure you.)   Either way, I encourage you to join us to unravel the truth, or if by chance you are working for the perpetrators, please tell them I said “hello again”.

Mr Montgomery is seeking nothing from me/us. I have stepped up voluntarily & independently after having verified the validity of his information, cross checked the attorneys filings, verified every bit of testimony under oath, and most importantly, submitted his information to authorities in 2019 without knowing who he was, or exactly what he had in his possession.   Now I know what is contained on those disks, and I understand why the perpetrators will use every means to stop it from being made public.  I can guarantee you that I/we will be on the right side of history, regardless of the judge’s decision in October.  

Here’s a suggestion:  If your report is centered on what is contained in your email, you should accurately report that Dennis Montgomery should be prosecuted for defrauding the government and committing perjury to every federal agency within it — and go to jail for the rest of his life.  There is overwhelming evidence in the court docket that proves he is a bonafide whistleblower.  If he has lied, the courts have a legal obligation to prosecute him.  Anything short of calling for his prosecution must be considered deception & diversionary.

Semper Fi,

Peter T. Santilli

During his Thursday edition of “The Pete Santilli Show,” Santilli indicated to associate Lance Migliaccio that he viewed The Post & Email not only as “the mainstream media,” but also as part of an “operation that’s been going on for years now to demonize and attack the messenger known as Dennis Montgomery.”

Migliaccio responded, “I don’t know if they’re mainstream or not,” then challenged many of our assertions.

On Friday night, we sent Santilli the following:

Thank you, Peter, for your response.  If you read through my work, you will see I have always referenced eyewitness testimony, court transcripts and other documentation in my reporting.  I work for no one, accept very little advertising, and “clicks” are not even a thought.  You are welcome to look into my “motives” to any degree you wish.

I am aware of your prosecution and exoneration several years ago and, in fact, “government corruption” is the theme and focus of my newspaper.

I appreciate your response about the “Operation Checkmate” website.  May I quote you on that in my article?

Given the tone of your email, am I to interpret it as a threat?  Were you threatened by my making contact to ask if you were aware of certain information in regard to Dennis Montgomery?  If so, why? A journalist’s responsibility is to find the truth, which involves making inquiries in the course of research which should threaten no one. The constant attempts to ridicule, silence, intimidate or in any other way dampen curiosity and inquiry on any issue will, in fact, kill this Republic.

My purpose in contacting you was to point out inconsistencies in Montgomery’s claims over a number of years as well as to ask if you have seen actual proof that Montgomery built “The Hammer,” among other things. 

There is no doubt the federal government has conducted illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant, and my quest is not to target Montgomery or anyone personally, but rather, to bring clarity to a story and history that is frankly as opaque as mud. 

If you have been able to verify the data Montgomery claims to have collected from the 2020 election, how did that occur given that Montgomery insists the data — and/or the technology allegedly behind it — falls under the Protective Order and State Secrets Privilege from his 2006 lawsuit?   Absent of a high-level security clearance, how would anyone legally verify its existence or authenticity?   How would the same technology Montgomery claims to have created almost two decades ago still be in use today or even operationally effective?

I was a bit surprised by your broadcast yesterday in which my email to you was discussed as part of an “operation” before I was allowed time to respond to your email or for you to read and evaluate any of my published material.  I am requesting, after you read some of my meticulously-researched work, that you retract that characterization.


1.     If my summation of Cameron’s interactions with Montgomery is inaccurate, why did Cameron in 2014 send Montgomery the following email, which was later submitted to a federal judge under subpoena and testified to during a federal trial? (Scroll down, image on left)

2.     Moreover, Mike Zullo, of whom you are aware because you mentioned him yesterday, met with Cameron along with an MCSO detective on two occasions to discuss why he did not run the Montgomery story.  Is there a reason you have not reached out to Mr. Zullo for a firsthand account?  

3.     Do you have different information from Cameron? 

4.     If the Protective Order prevents Montgomery from releasing the evidence he claims to have, why was it not stated as the reason the PCAPS were not produced at Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium over a year ago? How does Lindell have the proper security clearances to view or possess them if they are truly protected?  Why has the narrative changed?

5.     How are the many discrepancies to be reconciled against a very long sordid legal history filled with courtroom documentation of inconsistencies and adverse opinions?

6.     Given this background and Montgomery’s history of failing to produce the evidence he claims to have, is it logical for observers to simply believe him now? 

For your convenience, I have included additional background:

·       Several years ago, William Binney (although not a signatory to the 2014 Arpaio report) and J. Kirk Wiebe appeared to have changed their minds about their original assessment of Montgomery’s information on Dave Janda’s “Operation Freedom,” at which time I reported it as I followed the story. However, I think you will find that as of 2019, Binney has a different view of the entire Montgomery situation.

Janda declined to host Zullo on his program: 

·       In November 2020, Wiebe informed me he had not himself seen any of Montgomery’s alleged evidence having to do with the 2020 election and that Montgomery was awaiting “government authorization” to release the evidence he had. 

·       In 2009, Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (now retired) referred Montgomery to the DOJ on an allegation of perjury which was never prosecuted. 

Cooke was the same judge who found, approximately three years earlier, that Montgomery’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the FBI’s search of his home and storage units (pp. 52-83)

·       In the 2015 Risen case, Judge Rudolph Contreras, as well as an appellate court, ruled against Montgomery after he did not produce the software he claimed to have which was at the heart of his defamation claim (begins on p. 19):

·       At about the same time he was speaking with Cameron, Montgomery claimed to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) to have evidence of government surveillance and data-collection of county residents, after which Arpaio hired him to produce it.  In his book, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio:  An American Legend,” Arpaio admitted he found Montgomery had “some” information he deemed “useful,” which I reported:

Zullo, too, has said the same:

·       In regard to Montgomery’s claims to have constructed The Hammer, in 2013 he told MCSO investigators, including Zullo, that the computer was “already purchased” when he arrived at Ft. Washington, MD as a subcontractor and that he had nothing to do with it. This is a vast departure from what he is maintaining today:

Wiebe said he stood by his original assessment of Montgomery’s MCSO data:

In the past, Wiebe claimed he never spoke with Montgomery prior to 2019, but the facts state otherwise, as this writer has seen emails exchanged between Zullo and Wiebe acknowledging it.

·       Montgomery states in his “Declaration” filed with the Lindell Motion to Intervene that the MCSO contacted him first, which is inaccurate; Montgomery sent a surrogate, Tim Blixseth, to make contact. The ensuing investigation did not encompass anything regarding voting or elections in Arizona as reflected in court transcripts and public reporting (interview recordings in second link):

·       In 2016, the federal judge presiding over Arpaio’s trial, Judge G. Murray Snow, deemed Montgomery to have committed “fraud” against the MCSO after five witnesses testified. The judge, it should be noted, was not friendly to the MCSO.

Page 64:

·       In your broadcast yesterday, you stated that Wiebe and Binney claim Zullo did not provide a complete picture of Montgomery’s background, including that he worked in a Special Access Program (SAP) and that programs on which he worked at for eTreppid were shielded from disclosure by Negroponte’s State Secrets Privilege and Protective Order.  However, in the presence of a sworn deputy, Zullo contends he did fully inform them of that aspect of Montgomery’s work on two occasions: 

·       Montgomery has made numerous claims about individuals who were cleared following investigations, including Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons: 

·       In full disclosure, this writer was a target of a complaint from Montgomery filed with a Washington State agency which was quickly proved false:

A false complaint against Zullo is detailed here:

Undoubtedly, you came across this during your research:

My entire compendium on Dennis Montgomery, “The Hammer,” and related matters consisting of over 300 articles: 

Please feel free to review my work and repost or quote from any of my articles. I stand behind all my research and am open to your comments and questions.  On the outside chance that Montgomery, over a year after the Cyber Symposium, produces the PCAPS from the 2020 election, the burning question is the chain of custody. I am looking forward to reporting on that. 

Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email

[Editor’s Note: The images were not included in the email, but rather, only the links which lead to them. Here, WordPress has automatically converted the links to clickable images.]

Late Monday night, we recontacted Santilli to ascertain his permission to publish any or all of his response to our inquiries. Very early Tuesday morning, we received the following:

Hello again Sharon, You have my permission to publish my commentary conditioned upon it being published in its entirety.   You do not have permission to “cherry pick” portions of my commentary taken out of full context from the original email.

If you wish to follow our ongoing coverage of the story, please feel free to tune into The Pete Santilli Show.   I responded publicly in part to your recent email inquiring why Dennis Montgomery hasn’t disclosed SAP level classified information to the public, or any other individual such as Carl Cameron of FoxNews who, as far as I am aware,  does not have the appropriate security clearance.  This statement is preposterous, and I hope your article doesn’t suggest that Mr. Montgomery’s failure to publicly disclose classified information discredits him in any way.  In fact, I would never expect or demand Mr. Montgomery to disclose classified methods which would pose a great danger/threat to our national security if our adversaries were made aware of the U.S.’s  surveillance technology, methods or capabilities.

The process by which Mr. Montgomery’s evidence of crimes against the United States of America must be, and is being adjudicated in the federal court system.   


Pete Santilli

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. When Santilli says he won two federal trials, what’s he referring to? The federal charges against him in Oregon were dismissed before trial, and Santilli in Nevada pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to impede federal officers.