Probe of Montgomery’s Financial Dealings Criticized by His Attorney : Law: Daniel Schmidt calls investigation of the Moorpark city councilman politically motivated. Two payments are questioned.

A lawyer representing Moorpark City Councilman Scott Montgomery acknowledged Friday that county prosecutors are investigating Montgomery’s financial dealings, but he denounced the probe as politically motivated.

Attorney Daniel J. Schmidt told The Times that investigators with the district attorney’s office are looking at two payments made to the 41-year-old councilman during the last three years.

Schmidt said the investigation into Montgomery was started in the heat of last year’s race for county supervisor, after Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury endorsed Judy Mikels--Montgomery’s victorious opponent in the 4th District supervisorial race.

“Even if all of the allegations that have been made about Scott doing business with some Simi Valley companies are true, there is no crime involved,” Schmidt said.

*

“It’s simply the district attorney’s office muscling into local affairs, trying to intimidate a candidate that they opposed in the previous election,” he said.

Schmidt said investigators have talked both to him and Montgomery in connection with the probe. They have asked Schmidt about two financial transactions--one involving a check for $3,500 and the other involving a payment of $12,000.

Prosecutors are focusing their investigation partly on whether Montgomery received a $3,500 personal loan in 1993 from Manuel Asadurian Sr., who was chairman of G.I. Industries until 1993 and remains on the corporation’s board of directors, sources have told The Times.

G.I. Industries is the east county’s largest trash hauling company, and Montgomery has voted on city trash hauling contracts with the firm.

*

But the $3,500 was not a loan from Asadurian or any other kind of payment to Montgomery from G.I. Industries, Schmidt said Friday. He produced copies of a check and an invoice which he said show that the money was actually a payment for a computer sold by Montgomery to another company, G.I. Sweeping, which operates heavy sweeping equipment for large parking lots. G.I. Sweeping is owned by Asadurian.

Schmidt said the investigators have also asked him about a $12,000 payment made to Montgomery in 1992 by G.I. Equipment Leasing, which was a subsidiary of G.I. Industries until 1992. The company is now run by Asadurian’s son, Manuel Asadurian Jr.

Schmidt’s comments were his first confirmation of an investigation into Montgomery. Montgomery had no comment on Friday, except to deny any guilt in connection with the probe. Earlier this week, Montgomery said he was unaware of any investigation and said investigators have not talked to him.

*

The probe was first disclosed last week when The Times reported that the public corruption unit of the district attorney’s office has been interviewing trash company officials and requesting Moorpark campaign records as part of an investigation that began six months ago.

Among the records prosecutors have requested are:

* Campaign records of all five members of the Moorpark City Council, including contributions under $100, during the last two city elections.

* Lists of all contributions, including those under $100, to Montgomery’s unsuccessful campaign last year for supervisor.

* Minutes from Moorpark City Council meetings dating back to 1992 and related to local waste-hauling contracts and other countywide trash issues.

* All the minutes of the Ventura County Waste Commission--which was chaired by Montgomery until earlier this month--during that same period.

Although Montgomery has repeatedly denied accepting any loan, Kip Mali, an attorney overseeing G.I. Industries’ reorganization in federal bankruptcy court, gave a different account to The Times in an interview on Thursday.

Mali said that the bankruptcy trustees had obtained letters, canceled checks and receipts that indicate that Montgomery received a personal loan for $3,500 from Asadurian.

*

Montgomery denied that in an interview Thursday, saying the $3,500 was a payment for a computer he sold to G.I. Sweeping. On Friday, Schmidt produced a canceled check and an invoice to show the money was for a Packard Bell computer workstation and software. The documents indicated a computer sale by Montgomery to the company on July 23, 1993.

The $3,500 G.I. Sweeping check was signed by Theresa Yassini, Asadurian’s daughter. It was made out to Eagle Systems, a computer and financial consulting firm Montgomery operated out of his Moorpark home.

Schmidt called the investigation a “waste of taxpayers’ money” and added that the district attorney’s office is “overstepping its bounds” when it investigates local officials.

“The district attorney formed this political malfeasance unit about a year or two ago and I think that the first person that unit should be investigating is Michael D. Bradbury for the way he has handled some of its activities,” Schmidt said.

*

Schmidt said the companies that paid Montgomery for computers and computer consulting work have nothing to do with G.I. Industries.

Montgomery did not report either the $3,500 or the $12,000 in question on any campaign disclosure forms, and has said he believes he is not required to do so. Failure to report large loans or the source of income more than $10,000 on campaign statements can be a violation of election law, according to officials from the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. But Schmidt said Friday he doubts there is any violation of law involving Montgomery.

“Let’s assume the worst,” Schmidt said. “Let’s assume that he should have specifically named the companies. . . . I don’t think that makes Scott one of Ventura County’s Ten Most Wanted.

“If there was a violation--and we maintain there was not--that should be something for the (Fair Political Practices Commission) to investigate,” he said. “But instead the D.A. is running one of the most intensive investigations that they’ve ever conducted. It seems a little ridiculous.”

Schmidt, who has represented Montgomery since receiving his law degree last year, said he has had his own run-ins with the district attorney’s office.

The son of former county supervisor Glen Schmidt, Dan Schmidt was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine last spring for a deceptive advertisement for three businesses he owned: California Legal Publication Office, California Legal Advertising and Ventura County Legal Advertising Bureau.

*

He said that experience with the district attorney’s office only reinforced his negative opinion of Bradbury and his team of investigators.

Schmidt cited the recent arrest of an Ojai man who was accused of being a rapist but later found to be innocent as an example of district attorney’s investigators mistakenly focusing on the wrong targets.

“Where’s the district attorney’s office when somebody is cleared?” Schmidt said. “When the investigation comes to an end and no wrongdoing is found or when their own people screw up? Where are they then?”

Montgomery’s only comment Friday was: “I don’t have anything to add, except that I’m not guilty.”