Saturday, June 30, 2012

De Nile is not only in Egypt - FYI

Search conducted at 8:00am Eastern Time today, June 30th.  18 days until preliminary trial in Las Vegas.  Go to THIS SITE and conduct your own search.

Calendar Search Results
CourtCase #Defendant's Name Plaintiff's Name
Department Case TypeDefendant's Attorney Plaintiff's Attorney
JudgeDate & Time Proceeding


Searched On
      Court: ALL
      Dept/Judge: Judge William D. Jansen
      Case Type: ALL
      Case/Citation Number:
      Defendants/Plaintiffs: MONTAGU      Defendants/Plaintiffs Attorney:
      From Date: 07/10/2012      To Date: 08/30/2012

Records Found: 1

Friday, June 29, 2012

July 29, 2012 - The Montagus crawl out of the swamp again.

Read the definition below and documents from the court for 2008 on Judgement for Reserved Issues - Montagu v Montagu, Case No. 06D010327, heard by the Honorable Judge Mark S. Millard, presiding.

At Montagu's request the issues were bifurcated, financial issues being determined in 2008 after Montagu ignored the judge's advice and married Laura.

Montagu lost custody of both children, by ruling of the same judge, in August, 2007. Wendy was given both legal and physical custody of the two children. They have resided with her entirely from that day until this.

Laura, in her latest irrational rant, again ignores reality. The likely reason this sudden surfacing of the Montagus occurred is the court date in Las Vegas, which was set for July 18th and is growing ever closer now. Probably makes both of them nervous. It is also possible they depended on financial assistance from Craig Franklin, who is now filling out his stable of 'girls,' as so has less money to spend on this far less satisfying project.

Melinda received an email from Craig and it and the link contained therein are posted on the Craig Franklin & Green Hills Software Site. Samara looks sort of like Laura, though, of course, younger and sexier. Craig generally pays women $5,000 a month to be sexually available to him, according to Anne Fisher, who used to handle his dating site contacts.

Back to Alex Montagu.

Wendy Buford Montagu was awarded legal and physical custody of the two children of her marriage with Alexander Montagu.

Alex, the children's father, was awarded joint legal custody, with visitation, which he chose not to exercise. He has not seen either child for at least three years in one case and four years in the case of the older child, who is now 19 and refuses to have any contact with his father.
Alex, who was found by the court of be hiding assets amounting to over half a million dollars, which he had failed to declare, as required by law, was ordered to pay both alimony and support for the two children.

Alex made precisely one payment of $300 himself. All other support received for the children has come directly from the Manchester Trusts.

Please read the transcript as it is extremely entertaining and is now being used, along with the transcript from Australia, as a play in three acts. 

As to the other issues - read the articles.  

Definitions Below:

Definition from Legal Dictionary
The care, control, and maintenance of a child, which a court may award to one of the parents following a Divorce or separation proceeding.
Under most circumstances, state laws provide that biological parents make all decisions that are involved in rearing their child—such as residence, education, health care, and religious upbringing. Parents are not required to secure the legal right to make these decisions if they are married and are listed on the child's birth certificate. However, if there is disagreement about which parent has the right to make these decisions, or if government officials believe that a parent is unfit to make the decisions well, then family courts or juvenile courts will determine custody.
District and state courts base their decisions on state laws, which vary greatly among states. If a case challenges the constitutionality of a state law or—in rare instances—a state's jurisdiction (i.e., its right to decide the case), then the U.S. Supreme Court may issue an opinion.

Divorced Parents

When custody must be spelled out because of a couple's divorce, the custody arrangement usually becomes part of the divorce decree. The decree names the parent with whom the child will live, how visitation will be handled, and who will provide financial support. Courts consider a custody award to be subject to change until the child comes of age, and in most states proof of a "change in circumstances" may overturn an earlier award. This flexibility is intended to allow for the correction of poor or outdated decisions, but it consequentially enables some parents to wage bitter custody battles that can last for years.
In a typical divorce involving at least one child, permanent physical custody is awarded to the parent with whom the child will live most of the time. Usually, the custodial parent shares joint legal custody with the noncustodial parent, meaning that the custodial parent must inform and consult with the noncustodial parent about the child's education, health care, and other concerns. In such situations, courts may order visitation, sometimes called temporary custody, between the child and the noncustodial parent. A clear schedule with dates and times may be written into the order, or a court may simply state that visitation should be reasonable. Child Support is a common requirement and is paid by the noncustodial parent to the custodial parent as assistance in raising the child.
The typical arrangement is subject to some exceptions. Some courts allow parents to retain joint physical custody, in which the child spends equal time with both parents. In California, the Family Code, for example, establishes a presumption that joint custody is in the child's best interest, thus placing joint custody as a preferred option when courts make custody determinations in that state. Cal. Fam. Code. Ann. § 3040 (West 1995). Advocates of joint custody argue that it lessens the feelings of losing a parent that children may experience after a divorce, and that it is fair to both parents. Many courts, on the other hand, resist ordering joint custody if either parent does not want it, due to the high degree of cooperation it requires, especially when the children involved are young or if the parents live a great distance apart, such as in separate states.
Split custody is an arrangement in which the parents divide custody of their children, with each parent being awarded physical custody of one or more children. In general, courts try not to separate siblings when awarding custody.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Employment History: Alexander Montagu

Generally, employment is construed to be a job which provides income to the individual. Yet because avocational activities may also represent real value which are not calculated in monetary terms these should also be included in any accounting of 'employment.'

How do you report the activities which bring in income when the source is less than legal? What constitutes employment when lying and conning others is part of your strategy? Examining the work and life history of Alexander, the Duke of Manchester, provides valuable insights in all of these areas.

An examination of Montagu's qualifications for employment, work history and avocational pursuits, are far less than stellar. Expelled from every school he attended, according to his mother, Lady Mary, he is barely literate. Suffused with a sense of entitlement he is incapable of holding a regular job or starting and running his own business. 

While LinkedIn lists him as, “Executive Manager at Global Atlantic International Security - Manager at Global Atlantic International Security,” records from his divorce of 2007 reveal he generated no income from this company for the entire 15 years of the marriage. A reasonable search provided no website or other indication the corporation exists in any form.
This article provides background and documentation refuting claims made by Montagu, providing the facts regarding his employment and sources of income.

The Murky Past of Alexander Montagu, styled Duke of Manchester

During the summer of 2011 I was asked to act as biographer for Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester. The duties, payment deferred until the book was sold, included producing a time line for his life and activities. For this purpose I took copious notes which remained unexamined until the last few days, having completed a parallel interview with his former wife of 15 years, Wendy Buford Montagu.

The original book was not written due to events chronicled elsewhere. Wendy and I are now working together on a website, The Duke and Doxie of Manchester intended to inform the public about Alex and Laura while also using Alex as a documented example of the behavior normal to an individual with psychopathic tendencies.

Alexander George Francis Drogo Montagu, 10th Duke of Manchester, Alex's grandfather, died November 23, 1977. Since there is no record of Montagu's having finished school it is possible his disgusted family, likely his mother, had allowed him to enlist in the military, who gratefully allowed him to leave at this time. Alternatively, he could also have left school at this point, simply changing the story as having left the military.

Further research will be necessary to confirm either scenario, or other variation.

However, this leaves a gap of several years unaccounted for. There is no indication Montagu served in the military. Consultations with covert-ops personnel indicate those employed by the military in these positions receive medical benefits. At no time has Montagu used or referenced having benefits from the military from any country. Since he is not shy about demanding he get any benefit he can in any way claim logically it would seem he did not serve in the military long enough to obtain benefits, if at all.

So, where was Montagu from November 1977 until he surfaces, by his admission, in Australia, living with Thomas Joseph Fabian Erikson, a notorious individual who, according to this article appearing an Australian paper, written by Innes Willox and Paul Conroy, was closely associated with Murder Inc., sometime in 1983?

To understand the patterns of behavior, exhibited by an individual, you study known behavior and correlate data.

Understanding begins with the stories he relayed compared with the objective truth, provided through published materials, documents and the experience of others who had first hand knowledge. If it was in his interests to withhold information he was very capable of remaining silent for as long as necessary. Lying comes as naturally to Montagu as breathing and he constructs stories, cobbling them together in continued attempts to evade reality.

The interview with Wendy delved into her recollections of her husband's work history during the period of her marriage. Along the way, I was reminded of the earlier notes. It seemed reasonable to include Duke Alex's earlier work experiences, so these begin our account.

Several gaps in Montagu's story immediately appeared. Alex's recollections, to both Wendy and myself, never touched on the period after the death of his grandfather in 1977 except to tell stories which were impossible to put into a chronology. My interviews with Alex had not reached further back than 1983. The five years between the two dates struck both of us as odd, especially given what he admits to from 1983 on.

Alexander Montagu claims to have worked for Thomas Joseph Fabian Erickson. Montagu identified Erickson as a member of the underworld. He claimed however, Erickson had kept him drugged. This struck me as strange since the duties required him to repossess automobiles, which required one be quick on one's feet and also able to drive reliably.
Montagu stated, for publication, he had lived with Erickson and his family for a period of 11 – 12 months during 1983 into 1984. Given the propensity for security Erickson, evidently an underworld figure of some power, both in Australia and around the world. This raised further issues.

Montagu's recounting of this period asserted facts refuted by court documents which, ironically, he provided to me himself. Going over my notes, made over a period of around 7 weeks, I noticed his story changed even over this short period.

Additionally, the language he generally used sounded like a memorized script, endlessly repeated. This changed when I asked him to pause, envision what he was seeing, and give me details. No substantial details were forthcoming about his first marriage, but either he or Laura sent me the documents along with a transcript of a court proceeding. Montagu claimed these documents were faked. At the time I did not examine them. When I had occasion to do so I realized it was very likely he had either never read them himself or could not understand what they said. If he had he would never have sent them to anyone.

According to the documents, after his marriage on March 17th, 1984, Montagu lived with his wife and her two children from her previous relationship. The wife, Marion Stoner Montagu, reports both she and her daughter were abused by her new husband . As you read the account, contained in an Application for Separation, these incidents are entirely credible, providing evidence as to where Montagu was living. 

Montagu told me he never lived with Stoner and never slept with her. In 1988 a photo appears illustrating an article in The People - My Barmy Wedding by Ian Dougall

Where court documents exist the dates associated with the marriage can be relied on to be accurate and reflect real events. Clearly, Montagu was anxious the real story not be told.

The entire story, with multiple court documents, is available here.

Variously, Laura and Alex attempted to persuade me the Stoner marriage was a joke; that Alex had been drugged and forced into the marriage; that it was not legally binding; that he never lived with Marion; that his mother took care of the annulment, and, finally, that the whole was a nefarious plot to ensure the Dukedom passed onto his brother, Kimble, carried out by his mother.

Eventually, I built a time line using the documents and Montagu's interviews which also included his relationship with Erickson, though this also was subject to the same clear attempts at revisionism by Montagu.

Alex seemed very concerned I believe the relationship with Erickson began only in 1983. He claimed not to have heard of him previously, though at the same time he said Erickson was a close friend of his mother's. This may well be true. As a gossip columnist, and socially, her range of acquaintance was large and Erickson maintained relationships in the legal community along with his criminal activities.
Montagu's activities from his grandfather's death in 1977 until the 'first meeting' with Erickson, as reported by Montagu, were explained as time spent in the military. There is no supporting evidence for this and many reasons to assume it is another Montagu fantasy.

The story of the first meeting with Erickson was striking.

Montagu claimed Erickson found him a few days after his return to Australia to find his mother, whose address and phone number were unknown to him. Alex told me he was staying at in very expensive suite at Regent Hotel in a large suite on the 50th floor. He lead me to believe he had plenty of money but did provide any source for these funds.

Erickson, Alex said, greeted him with, “I understand you are looking for your mother.” Alex told me he immediately was handed 10 thousand cash, a Walter P5 gun, and a private investigator license and moved into the Erickson home to work for him. It sounded more like a scene out of a movie than reality.

The room described by Montagu at the Erickson home in St. Eliza had its own bathroom and was 'posh,' as was the entire mansion, which was far back from the street and approached over a gulley or moat with very tight security, according to Montagu, whose work was repossessing cars, he said.
When Erickson died in 1988 he was still facing 230 charges, including kidnapping, threats to damage aircraft, blackmail, threats to kill, and sexual assault against minors, according to an article appearing in an Australian paper.

Montagu had also mentioned Erickson and he conspired to carry out a plot to 'kidnap' him, Alex, and extort money from the Manchester Trust for his return. Alex expressed no particular shame or comment on this money-making scheme.

I received the impression his mother was involved in the kidnapping scheme. In a curious way this makes sense as she certainly would have liked to receive more from the Trusts and this backdoor into the funds could have been attractive and her placement of her son with Erickson would then make more sense. This is, of course, speculation.
He also claims to have been in the military, but told Wendy he left the service at the time his grandfather died. This remark has higher reliability than other stories told by Montagu because it was an off-hand remark and not intended to aggrandize himself.

Lying comes as naturally to Montagu as breathing and he constructs stories, cobbling them together in continued attempts to evade reality.

The first example of this is his criminal history, which he claims is an invention by murky forces for reasons which are not in evidence. This was in evidence as he tried to formulate denial of the facts surrounding his first marriage.

Montagu's criminal history, carried in the Australian media and later around the world, was documented via articles published in Australian papers during and after his incarceration on multiple charges for various offenses from 1985 on. ARTICLES Other criminal behavior is attested to through examination of his divorce from Wendy Buford Montagu and includes fraud upon the court, use of the legal system to libel, theft, and a fraud carried out against Buford Montagu of monumental proportions.

It also includes the passing of bad checks, as a routine, while married to Wendy, damage of properties rented by him, the illegal use of his own son's social security number to obtain loans, and assault, none of which have resulted in criminal charges as the vehicles were successfully repossessed.

Montagu is now awaiting pre-trial on another account of passing a bad check in the purchase of vehicle in Las Vegas. At the same time, he and Laura, his present wife, maintain the charges have been dropped and they are relocating to England or Europe.

A call to the Deputy District attorney, Frank Ponticelli, confirmed charges have not been dropped in the Duke's case, No. 11F21867X. The attorney of record, Steve Goldstein, Half Priced Lawyers Suite #100, 330 E Charleston Boulevard Las Vegas, NV 89104 (702) 400-0000, who appeared for Montagu in March, was also called but has, to date, not returned the call.

Montagu has a history of talking about himself and even contacting the media to make announcements about his activities, this reflected in articles appearing around the world. Many of his statements are deemed to be scandalous and shocking, for instance the comment appearing in The People, published in 1988, written by Ian Dougall. The comment which most shocked was not the offer to sell the title of Duchess of Manchester by marrying any woman who could put up 25 million Pounds. It was the seemingly off hand comment on his father of, I'm hoping my father won't be around much longer so the way will soon be open for me to become the 13th Duke.”

The article goes on to quote Marion Stoner Montagu, then still legally Montagu's wife, on the impossibility of marrying for money when Montagu is still married. She further comments she was unable to find him to serve divorce papers.

In May of 1993 Montagu, still married to Marion Stoner, again married, this time to Wendy Buford in Orange County, California. Their son was born several days later but the couple had been living together for for time. On the marriage license filled out by Montagu he checked, “Never Married.” “Annulled” was an option on the form.

Neither before the wedding, or later, did Wendy ever hear the name, “Marion Stoner” on the lips of her husband or from any other member of his family, though all knew.

Matters which are impossibly awkward or dangerous are matters on which Montagu can remain as silent as the tomb, so to speak.

Wendy discovered the facts in 2009,two years after the couple's divorce, which took place in August of 2007. 

Montagu's apparent motive for marriage was to evade deportation and increase his income via larger payments from the Manchester Trusts. His 2009 motive for revealing his bigamy was the misplaced hope the funds, no longer available to his wife and children, would become available to him. 

Comparing Montagu's assertions regarding Wendy, who has been steadily employed for 25 years, despite the 11 evictions caused by Montagu's non-payment of rent or mortgage, are eye-opening.

A transcript is available here and includes comments by the judge on the hundreds of thousands of dollars which flowed through his account during the less than one year period of the divorce while he was claiming to be disabled and indigent and had requested alimony from Wendy. 
Montagu also claimed his then fiancee's family was supporting them. 
The title of Duke of Manchester and any property from the estate on which he can lay hands and sell are, arguably, the only asset available to Montagu except the regular payments from the Manchester Trusts. (see end of article) 

Coming into the title was a moment he expected, according to Wendy, to be monumental. But it was not so, nor had it proven to be particularly posh for his father, who also experienced straitened circumstances. 

Clearly, Montagu did not pause to consider the realities which faced him. 

Just months before his father, Angus, himself succeeded to the title of Duke in June, 1985 Alexander was sentenced to prison. Alexander, now the heir of a Duke, is reported to have wept while standing in the dock ,although with 29 charges against him this should not have been surprising. Public interest in his case was increased because of the title, this revealed by the Herald article, published in 1986, which accompanies his release, 1986 - Of broken hearts and coronets ALAN TATE by Alan Tate .

Until 1985 there was no guarantee Montagu would succeed to the title of Viscount of Mandeville, the title accorded to the heir of the Duke of Manchester, much less the dukedom. 

Dukedoms are associated in our minds with great wealth and this had once been the case with the Manchester heritage. But times had changed. 

The Manchester Trusts had come into existence in an attempt to stem the loss of accumulated wealth and long cherished properties from centuries past. There was not one trust, but several. Each remains in control of funds placed under their oversight to be doled out at their discretion in accordance to preset guidelines.

Upon becoming the heir, Montagu began receiving a stipend from the Trust. But this was not large. When he succeeded to the title of Duke, upon the death of his father, the 12th Duke, the floodgates of wealth, again, did not open. 
While interviewing Montagu he had told me he was raised to expect he would be wealthy, this coming from his grandfather, the 10th Duke who had largely contributed to the demise of the family fortunes, according to Marcus Scriven in his book, “ Splendor and Squalor.” This was one of the reasons, he told me, he did not feel motivated to apply himself in school. Of course, there is a large chasm between 'not applying yourself,'and leaving school, very competent and expensive schools, barely literate. 
For the record, both of Montagu's younger siblings are professionals and hold jobs, having attended the same schools. 

Also for the record, Alex held five jobs while he was married to Wendy. The first of these was driving the shuttle Wyndham Hotel in Costa Mesa, in late 1994. The couple lived within walking distance. Alex, Jr. was less than a year old and Wendy was working full time and taking care of the household when she came home. This job lasted about a month, according to Wendy, who remembers he was excited about the tips. She also noted losing the job was never his fault. He showed no sense of having failed. 
The second job began in 1995, lasted two weeks and involved scraping barnacles off boats in Newport Harbor. Wendy had to drop him off and pick him up. 
The third job was in 1999, driving a limo for a company whose name was something like “Five Star Limo.” This ended after less than a month when he ran over someone's foot, according to Wendy. 

The fourth job began while the couple was living in Irvine in early 2002. Alex became a security guard for Nordic Security and drove a patrol car wearing a standard uniform. Excited by this, he became very wrapped up in the job and, according to Wendy, Alex decided he was actually a police officer, buying extra uniforms in addition to a pair of handcuffs. 

The handcuffs were used these on Wendy, one evening, dragging her down the hallway and bruising her badly during a disagreement. He lost the job because of an altercation while on patrol at a movie complex area in Lake Forest. 

Wendy understood the event which ended this employment was an altercation with a woman manager at the Movie theater and the manager's boyfriend. Alex did not confide in her further except to say he needed to break up a fight. He told Wendy he was shoved and hurt on the job, evidently this resulted in a claim for workman's compensation. Wendy believes the job lasted perhaps, a month. 

The fifth job was his longest and lasted nearly two months. 

Alex started training in November 2005 at Disneyland for the Indiana Jones Ride. Initially, he loved the work and made friends, occasionally having drinks after work. But evidently this also meant he did not have the money to pay the mortgage on the house they had finally managed to buy. After the family was evicted from the home Wendy had made for them the family moved to Laguna Niguel. This occurred around Valentine's day, 2006 while Alex was still working at Disneyland. This was the last job except a possible short stint at MacDonalds on the fry machine.

According to Wendy she knew of no serious avocational pursuits which occupied Alexander's interest.

Sources of the Duke of Manchester's Annual Income:

                                  Manchester Trust, UK(Monthly)         Manchester Trust, US (Quarterly)
Annual Income:           $3,000 depending on exchange rate               $4,000 - $6,000

Understanding the work history of Alexander, Duke of Manchester, is one of the keys to understanding him – and the world of those without conscience.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Judgment for Reserved Issues - Pages 21 - 30

Judgement for Reserved Issues - Montagu v Montagu
Pages 21 - 30

Pages 1 - 10      11 - 20     21 - 30 

Pages 1 - 10      11 - 20     21 - 30
Judgement for Reserved Issues - Montagu v Montagu
Pages 11 - 20

Pages 1 - 10      11 - 20     21 - 30 

 Pages 1 - 10      11 - 20     21 - 30

2008 - Judgement for Reserved Issues - Montagu v Montagu

Judgement for Reserved Issues - Montagu v Montagu
Case No. 06D010327
Honorable Judge Mark S. Millard, Presiding
Reporter's Transcript of Judge's Ruling 
September 15, 2008

Pages 1 - 10      11 - 20     21 - 30

Pages 1 - 10      11 - 20     21 - 30