Montgomery Charges He Was Unfairly Singled Out

In the latest bid to withdraw his guilty plea in a political conflict-of-interest case, former Moorpark City Councilman Scott Montgomery is charging that he was singled out for prosecution over other eastern Ventura County politicians.

Montgomery’s lawyer, James Farley, made the allegation as part of a lengthy court document asking to have the plea withdrawn on grounds that Montgomery “has been the object of discriminatory prosecution.”

But the prosecutor working on the case countered Tuesday that Farley’s allegations are baseless.

And the man whose comments were the source of Farley’s claim questioned how his statements could have been construed to imply wrongdoing on the part of other public officials.

The new motion was based in part on a memorandum by Deputy Dist. Atty. David Stone summarizing an interview he had with Ric Carrott, a former consultant to the trash company G.I. Industries.

Farley alleged in his motion to withdraw the plea that Carrott’s comments tie County Supervisors Frank Schillo and Judy Mikels and former Supervisor Vicky Howard to the same trash company official who contributed money to Montgomery.

In backing up the allegations, Farley cited comments by Carrott in concluding that “all of these people are alleged to be in much ‘deeper’ than [Montgomery].”

Farley also said in the motion: “To date none of the above stated people have been investigated by the district attorney’s office. Only [Montgomery] has been targeted.”

But, contacted Tuesday, Carrott said he never alleged that those officials did anything improper.

“I’m not sure what Mr. Montgomery’s attorney is trying to gain by saying that, but I can assure you that I haven’t accused these people of any wrongdoing,” Carrott said.

In the memo from Stone which is attached to Farley’s motion, there is no evidence that Carrott ever alleged misconduct by those politicians.

According to the confidential memorandum detailing the interview, Carrott told investigators that he believed “most local politicians . . . have not compromised their positions as community leaders in their dealings with G.I. Industries.”

Meanwhile Schillo, Mikels and Howard denounced the statements in the motion as completely without merit.

“Well that’s absolutely obscene,” said Schillo, who said he would ask his attorney about possible legal action in response to the statements. “The whole thing gives the impression of a sinking man trying to implicate somebody else to cover up what he has been doing.”

Former Supervisor Howard said the allegations were too “off the wall” to comment on, and Supervisor Mikels also said the matter “was not worthy of comment.”

This is Montgomery’s second try to get the plea withdrawn.

He faces as many as 3 1/2 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 in fines.

Last October, Montgomery pleaded guilty to felony and misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charges after admitting that he accepted a $3,500 loan from Manuel Asadurian Sr., the former top executive at G.I. Industries, which was negotiating a waste-hauling contract with Moorpark at the time.

Soon after making his plea, Montgomery and his attorneys tried to take it back, saying that he was bullied and coerced by prosecutors into pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit.

Along with the allegation that Montgomery was being singled out for “discriminatory prosecution,” Farley cites several other points that he said support having the plea withdrawn, including allegations that prosecutors “abused” the grand jury process, and Montgomery’s rights against self-incrimination were not respected.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Mark Aveis said he did not believe that Farley’s motion contained any new evidence.

“It’s rehash,” Aveis said of the motion. “It’s a new spin on an old story. They’re grasping at straws, throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks.”

Municipal Court Judge Thomas Hutchins will hear the new motion to withdraw the guilty plea on Monday. If the motion is again denied, Montgomery is set to be sentenced June 5.