Friday, November 30, 2012

Alex, Laura, and possibly Mary again deny reality

UPDATE - A voice mail left by Alex to Wendy in 2009, informing her they were never legally married and telling Wendy about  his mother's involvement in the supposed divorce from Marion Stoner Montagu in 1994, will be up soon.  It is a dilly, you will not want to miss this. 

Alex, Laura, and possibly Mary, have decided to busy themselves again. This resulted in my remembering to put up the 1996 divorce documents, Alex Montagu v. Marion Stoner Montagu, so this was all to the good.

Montagu's psychiatric and medical history


Montagu was never in the military. Scars he shows as wounds received in battle evidently originated when he slashed his wrists, as reported in the Transcript of Proceedings, during his gastric bypass, and at the time of his butt lift.

Likelihood of Alex or Laura writing anything publishable.

Laura and Alex are lying again. Newspapers, as I have explained before, have fact checkers. They occasionally rely too heavily on the reports of those being interviewed, for instance in the case of the article written by Frank Swertlow, appearing in the Daily News in 1988 titled, "There's lots of land down under his limo," but generally they are careful about charges of felonies. And when they report court proceedings and verdicts generally they have had a reporter in the courtroom.  These two articles, both appear in the immediate wake of Alex's sentencing in Australia on August 14, 1985, show the variations and similarities between content by different reporters.  The Sun, Tears as heir, 22, gets jail, The Age, Duke's heir weeps in dock .

But we can get the ones from Orange County and put them up, there, does that make you happy, Alex?

The Marriage and Divorce from Marion Stoner Montagu – 1984 - 1996

Did Mary pay Marion for the trouble of filing the papers? Given what is documented below it sounds like $5,000 was cheap.

March 17, 1984 - Marriage of Alexander Montagu to Marion Stoner   MarriageCertificate
August 31, 1984        - Applicationfor Separation  
September 5, 1984   - Request for Restraining Order 
September 6, 1984   - Transcriptof Proceedings
September 19, 1984 - CourtOrder extending previous order of court, made September 6th, 
                                        until 2nd of  October.
October 2, 1984         - CourtOrder October 2, 1984  Alexander is restrained from molesting,
                                        assaulting, abusing, intimidating, harassing or in any way interfering 
                                        with the wife. 
August 9, 1996          – Applicationfor Divorce 
                                        Application for Non-Payment of Filing Fees
October 28, 1996      - CertifiedDivorce Decree

After filing for separation Marion never saw Alex again and never used the title, Lady Montagu.

Quote from letter written by Mary Montagu to Wendy Buford Montagu in 2011 - “I had absolutely no knowledge of any alleged marriage ceremony entered into with that Stoner woman until I was approached at my workplace, well after you were "married" and I believe Alexander would have been about 4 at the time.

If Mary believed all was well why the 'married' emphasis? Marion tells a different story.

Quote from letter written by Mary Montagu to Wendy Buford Montagu in 2011 - “The woman was then in her late 40s and had teenage children - she had been in a very long term relationship which led me, my attorneys and employer at the time to believe it had been a total set-up and scam.”

From court documents regarding Marion Stoner's previous relationship: "lived in a defacto relationship with Con Sorensen for twelve years."  The documents also says the two children were Lisa Marie, born December 5, 1969, and Daniel Frederick Sorensen, born July 10, 1973.

An examination of the court papers shows these facts in evidence and not matters of dispute among the parties. Marion would have been in her late 40's in 1996 when the divorce took place. The children of the marriage would have been in their late teens or older by then. Evidently, Alex did not send his family members invitations to the wedding. Please note his behavior is very much at variance with what is 'normal' in more ways than it is possible to count so this is not really surprising.

Quote from letter written by Mary Montagu to Wendy Buford Montagu in 2011 - “And although I do not believe anything that Alexander says these days I believe that at barely 20 at a BBQ party he was tricked into "let's all pretend to get married".” 

Note: Alex's mother does not believe anything he says. But apparently the marriage to Marion and cascade of events thereafter missed her notice, though she was a working journalist and also employed by the local constabulary in some capacity. Now, I don't believe she did not know. Notice this article, from 1985, mentions the divorce, which has not yet happened, also quoting Mary rather extensively. Mary and Alexander: It's a title fight.

Quote from letter written by Mary Montagu to Wendy Buford Montagu in 2011 - “I have the legal papers signed by the woman at the time accepting the "blackmail" amount in full and final settlement.   Norman and Parke held the legal papers.”

Note: Mary did not inform Wendy, who was substantially impacted by this evasion.

Facts obtained through study of court records
Marion Stoner says she had two children from a previous relationship. The name of her previous partner is given as Con Sorensen. She had never been married. Application for Separation  

One of these children, a girl, was handicapped. This is the child who Alex threw off the stairs and otherwise abused, according to the complaint and request for protection. Applicationfor Separation  

Marion reported in an article published in 1988 she was unable to obtain a divorce because she did not know where Alex was. The People - MyBarmy Wedding by Ian Dougall



Saying it over and over again just makes you look even stupider. It did happen. See marriage certificate and accompanying court records above.

No, it was a divorce.

WEDDING PHOTOS? (This is Laura, who seems to believe it is wedding photos which make a marriage legal, not a signed contract or license from the state.)

This is speculation, but they were most likely either members of the underworld in Australia or the family of the bride. In either case, it is unlikely they would want to do anything but forget the matter.

The documents say otherwise, but I'm sure she wishes she had never met Alex.

While it is unusual for a man of 20 to marry a woman of 33 it is not illegal or unheard of.

Lia Belli was also older, as was the former stripper in Vancouver who you reported being in love with in 1991. Presumably, all of these women were very attractive, certainly Marion and Lia were.
1991 - September 21 SUN JOURNAL, (AP) Diana's Cousin Selling Title

Marion Stoner testified, under penalty of perjury at the time, she had never been previously married. No documents have been presented to refute this point.

Marion had two kids from her previous relationship, this a fact known to Alex before the wedding occurred. All of the Montagus, to date, appear to be very vague about numbers.

Assertion, no documentation.

Alex may not have given his correct address as he was previously, by his report, living with and working for, a kingpin in the Australian underworld.

Assertion, no documentation.

Yes, but such cases are generally thrown out. This case was heard very seriously.

The police might have shown up for another hearing, the one regarding Alex barricading himself in his residence and attempting to shoot the officer with a speargun, evidently the same one he used in his attempt to shoot Marion.

The police were mentioned in the transcript. The mention had to do with ensuring they were warned to approach Alex with caution because of his violent behavior. Applicationfor Separation  

Incidentally, this transcript makes a great short one act play. We are working on this.

The Media
This is probably true. Alex seems to have enjoyed contacting the media and seeing his name in print. He also seems to have used the media for free advertising in his occasional quest to sell either his title or the title of 'duchess.' According to both Wendy and Laura, he has in his possession a binder with his 'clippings,' which he shows to impress people. He also sends copies of the articles, which cite him as having contacted the media, to others, including me.

Evidently, they are not completely fed up with you because they are still writing and material for articles is still being produced.

Since nothing you do is normal this is all they have to print.

1996 - Divorce Documents Alexander Montagu v. Marion Stoner Montagu Certified Divorce Decree

1996 - Divorce Documents Alexander Montagu v. Marion Stoner Montagu DISSOLUTION Record of Proceeding/Outcome Sheet

1996 Divorce - Alexander Montagu vs. Marion Stoner Montagu Application for Non-Payment of Filing Fees

1996 - Divorce Documents Alexander Montagu v. Marion Stoner Montagu

The Divorce - Many Years Too Late 

I now understand why Laura and Alex and Mary continue to maintain a series of fictions regarding the events surrounding the 1996 divorce.  I scanned the documents and forgot to put them up!  Silly me.  They thought I did not have them!  An oops moment for them. 

Here are the essentials.  I'll leave out some juicy additions for later.  

Application August 9, 1996           Application for Non-Payment of Filing Fees      DISSOLUTION  Record of Proceeding/Outcome Sheet   Certified Divorce Decree

Thursday, November 29, 2012

A Response from Wendy Montagu to Mary Montagu, Alex's mother

Dear Mary, 
I leave off the honorific as your behavior makes a mockery of a title which is intended to denote a level of behavior to which you have never been inclined to adhere. 
You always knew I had been defrauded by Alex because you were well aware he had never divorced Marion Stoner. Instead of informing me of these facts you entered into a conspiracy with him, by your own admission in the letter below. To quote, “Finally Norman and I decided to keep the matter "secret"  that there was no point in harming you or the children - and at that time Alexander (Sir) worshipped (sic) the ground you walked on and cherished the children.”

This is, itself, a fantasy, which you well know. Worshiped the ground I walked on? Enough was shared with you, along with what you saw, to make me question your sanity at such an assertion. Alex was responsible for our 13 evictions, for continued depletion of my 401K to pay for his bouncing checks, physical abuse, continued, unremitting emotional abuse, and the ugliest divorce anyone could imagine. This seems like worship to you? Is this your way of saying you deify Satan? 
No decent person would leave someone they, “viewed as a daughter,” and their grandchildren, if they actually cared about them, in such a legally vulnerable position. And in 2009 you showed not a shred of concern for me or the children. We could have starved, for all you cared. 
Your motives were very much otherwise. Self interest was your motivator, which your later actions confirm. You had been embarrassed by Alex's criminal behavior in Australia, horrified when he was convicted and sent to prison. All of these reflected badly on the pretense you have always attempted to maintain as a person of title and good reputation. 
Of course, that statement did not then, or now, bear close examination. 
Your father was a car salesman. Your mother a homemaker. These are honest occupations and worthy of respect - if carried out honestly, but no different, except for, perhaps accomplished income, than those held by my own parents. My parents, and fore-bearers, were honest, hard working people. No jailbirds in the lot. 
No one in my family has ever been arrested for fraud or assault, convicted, and been incarcerated. Yet, you ignore the respectable side of your family and, instead, continue to the pretense you originate from the aristocracy. A sad delusion. 
Titles, evidently, must be taken with a grain of salt. Good reputation is more objective, grounded on the evidence of such values as truth-telling, hard work, compassion, and simple decency. 
Over the last year I have learned, to my shock, facts about your own behavior which are, to say the least, scandalous. These facts include information about your behavior, while employed, your 'social life,' and other revelations. Alex was not the source. I know better than to believe him.

In the wake of the trial in Queen's Court of July 2011 I was contacted by the media. I told the truth because I believe all of us need to live the truth and not contort and distort the facts to support illusions, our own or others'. My children know this. Being raised by a father who never told the truth impacted them as well. This, you choose to forget. 
For two years I had struggled to support my children, your grandchildren, with no help from the Manchester Trusts or you and your family. This was an conscienceless act on your part. Your letter is a morass of lies, self-justifications which do nothing but reveal you to be what you are, a social climber who was hoisted on your own petard when you grabbed the opportunity for a title without considering the man who offered you the title, for former husband Angus, who later became the 12th Duke of Manchester. 
Your grasping for entitlement is clear from the article written about you and Alex when Angus became duke in 1985. Mary and Alexander: It's a title fight. Your former husband, Alex's father, was being tried for fraud while the two of you squabbled over titles. 
I am well aware the Manchester Trusts did the right thing as soon as they were apprised of the facts. You had not in 1993, 1996, or later. Those in charge of the Trusts have my absolute gratitude and support for their unfailing rectitude. 
Your lies regarding the Marion Stoner marriage, again presented in your asinine letter, are refuted by copious documentation. You stand exposed as a liar, worse so since, as a supposed journalist, you had access to the means for ascertaining all of the facts. 
In this letter you have libeled Marion Stoner and myself. Your actions have cost me years of my life. If I had known Alex was married I would never have married him. At the moment he informed you he was marrying you were obligated to tell the truth. You did not. 
Every year since then has been stolen from me, as marriage to him denied me the opportunities which my work ethic and inherent abilities would have obtained, to say nothing of the emotional costs exacted. 
During this time you and your 'family' have lived lives free of pain and embarrassment. Your freedom was paid by me, unwittingly becoming the caretaker for your psychopathic son, Alex. 
I will tell the truth. Justice will be done, this, I promise.


Wendy Dawn Buford Montagu

See email below from Mary Montagu to Wendy Buford Montagu

From: Mary Montagu [] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 2:43 PMTo: Montagu, Wendy (OC)Subject: Disgust and HurtImportance: High

Wendy,  I am at a total loss to understand your diatribe of vicious lies against myself and Emma and Kimble in the British press.    It is ironic as as soon as we heard of the hearing - not until after the judgment - we were all devastated this public outing would have on the innocent parties, Alexander Jnr and Ashley.   We were in the process, on Thursday, Australian time, of seeking to offer them a trip to Australia for summer and possible further schooling in Australia for Alexander.   It is all very well to express our hurt and amazement at your vitriolic actions --- but what about your children --- one can only presume that you care very little for them.

Now to more specific things and a couple of lies.    I had absolutely no knowledge of any alleged marriage ceremony entered into with that Stoner woman until I was approached at my workplace, well after you were "married" and I believe Alexander would have been about 4 at the time.   The woman was then in her late 40s and had teenage children - she had been in a very long term relationship which led me, my attorneys and employer at the time to believe it had been a total set-up and scam.   And although I do not believe anything that Alexander says these days I believe that at barely 20 at a BBQ party he was tricked into "let's all pretend to get married".   If you think for a moment at the press Alexander has always generated how come not a word of this ceremony made it into any of the local Melbourne, Australian press.   It doesn't make sense.     I paid the woman off --- Norman told Alexander what was going on -- and a divorce, annulment was obtained.   I have the legal papers signed by the woman at the time accepting the "blackmail" amount in full and final settlement.   Norman and Parke held the legal papers.

Now, this nonsense about you not knowing I was alive until after Alexander was born.... A lie, Wendy, you forget Wendy, that one of my oldest and best friends from University, Norman Parker was - during the time and up until his death, Alexander's de facto father.   I spoke to you before the baby was born and the day after you and Alexander went through the form of marriage.   I have always regarded you as a daughter and Emma has loved you like a sister.   Norman totally regarded you as his "family" and indeed made provision with certain funds here in Australia, at a discretion of executors, that would go to Alexander at the age of 21.   I am now seeking (as one of the executors)  to have this negated.

I have stood up for you throughout all the drama of the past few years.   I have not spoken to Alexander since, or barely.   I do not enter into any discussion with Laura.

I have consistently said, regardless of who the father is, or under what circumstances, they are my grandchildren and Alexander both morally and financially should accept the responsibility --- and they should be protected above all.

Unfortunately the children are the innocent victims.  

You have turned, in my mind, into a vitriolic trailer park harridan.   I can not believe that my love and respect for you meant so little.   That you would honestly believe that I know or disguised this Stoner business.

And much as I hate to say it, and as a result of investigations by my solicitors here and my own searches  I absolutely believe that Alexander had no idea that the backyard wedding ceremony was anything more than a joke.   He never lived with or slept with this woman.   At the time he was in a committed relationship with Sonia, who was in fact and innocent party at the BBQ.

Finally Norman and I decided to keep the matter "secret"  that there was no point in harming you or the children - and at that time Alexander (Sir) worshipped the ground you walked on and cherished the children.

Wendy, I have since University, kept a detailed diary and these facts are documented.  Including the first time I visited, when you lived next door to you mother, and the grueling and distressing grilling on how much money Alexander had and how to get hold of it shocked me, but over the years I put the conversation to the back of my mind and put it down as my own paranoia.

Wendy I cannot forgive you.   Finally I told you of Emma's very dire health problems and this last couple of days have seen her condition deteriorate significantly -  - not the case which we supported at the time and indeed its judgment - but your trailer park vent to the press and the irreparable damage done to your children with total disregard to their well being and future by your rant.has resulted

Mary Montagu

PS:  There is no way that the Trusts - either in the US or UK knew of either the sham marriage nor the subsequent annulment.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Marion Stoner Montagu Reprise

Said it before, saying it again.  Originally published 

                                              Saturday, March 31, 2012

After a while it becomes clear to everyone Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester lies.  He ignores the fact his lies are routinely exposed.  This is his nature.  We must give thanks he is not smarter.  

Marion Stoner, First Marriage of Alexander Duke of Manchester

Marriage of Alexander Montagu to Marion Stoner   Marriage Certificate
March 17, 1984

Married from her mother's home, the wedding taking place in their garden. 

Marion Stoner was a model, aged 32, when in November of 1983, she met Alexander Montagu.  The couple were married on March 17th of the next year.   

Stoner had been in a relationship and had two children but never married.  

Due to violence and abuse by Alexander Marion Montagu left Alexander on May 21, 1984 and filed for legal separation.   See Application for Separation

Ms. Stoner reported in the application for separation having, "lived in a defacto relationship with Con Sorensen for twelve years."  The documents also says the two children were Lisa Marie, born December 5, 1969, and Daniel Frederick Sorensen, born July 10, 1973.

Immediately following the wedding, Marion reports that her husband became extremely hostile toward the children.  This escalated until on May 12th Alexander walked into the living room where Lisa Marie was watching television, grabbed and choked the girl, who was handicapped.  He carried her to the front door,  and threw her down the stairs, locking the door.  

The report, in five pages of narrative, given under penalty of perjury, outlines a series of assaults ending with an attack on Marion with a spear gun. In her own words, this is what took place after she had already endured barrages of violence and the assault on her children.

After filing for separation she never saw him again and never used the title, Lady Montagu.

August 31, 1984        - Application for Separation  
September 5, 1984   - Request for Restraining Order 
September 6, 1984   - Transcript of Proceedings
September 19, 1964 - Court Order extending previous order of court, made September 6th, 
                                        until 2nd of  October.
October 2, 1984         - Court Order October 2, 1984  Alexander is restrained from molesting,
                                        assaulting, abusing, intimidating, harassing or in any way interfering 
                                        with the wife. 

The Application for Separation brings the words a terrified woman to life after a silence of decades.  It took no time for the court, which heard the case for a restraining order ex parte, to act. 

"11. On another occasion on or about the 20th day of May, 1984 when my girlfriend AMANDA LEE RICHARDS  was present in my home having tea an argument occurred between the respondent and myself about my daughter Lisa Marie and his treatment of her and the respondent came in from the kitchen and hit me across the left side of the face with his open hand but with a great deal of force.  I was stunned by the force of the blow and thereafter suffered considerable pain as the blow caused painful bruising to my eye.  Immediately after my husband had assaulted me he then went to the broom cupboard in the home and removed a spear gun and loaded a spear into it, came into the room where Mandy Richardson and I were standing and took aim and fired the speargun at me.  The speargun missed my by approximately a foot but only missed my girlfriend's head by approximately half an inch.  

12. As a result of the respondent's assault upon me and my fear for my ownsafety and that of my two children I immediately made arrangements to leave the matrimonial home and I left the home on the day thereafter taking with me such furniture and possessions as I had previously acquired prior to the marriage.  

13. I verily believe that the respondent slashed his wrists with raor blades and was admitted to Dandenong and then to Pine Lodge Psychiatric Hospital where he remained as an in-patient for approximately four weeks.  

14. Thereafter I resided with a number of my friends and endeavored to keep away from the respondent and not let him become aware of my address.  When the respondent was unable to locate me I verily believe from my mother Mrs. Maria Stoner who resides in Cranbourne and sister Gabi Byng that the respondent telephoned them both constantly on a daily basis endeavoring to locate my whereabouts.  In addition, I am informed by my mother and my sister that the respondent drove his motor vehicle up and down the street in which they reside attempting to terrorise them and that he called at their homes and knocked on the door and tried to gain admission into their homes.  

15. Due to the fear that I had for my own safety and that of my children I went to reside with friends of mine in Essondon so that the respondent would be unable to threaten or assault me.  

16. In September school holidays, I returned to Cranbourne to reside with my mother at 22 Mundering Drive, Cranbourne.  I know, due to the fact that I have seen respondent driving his motor cycle and car up and down the street that the respondent is still trying to locate me and I am fearful for my safety in view of the respondent's irrational behavior." 

Alexander was incarcerated, first in the psychiatric facility mentioned.  The assault resulted in a conviction in the Dandenong Magistrate's Court on the 13th day of August, 1984 for two counts of assault with a weapon.  He was placed on probation for a period of twenlve months with the direction he undergo psychiatric treatment.

He would soon be standing trial for credit card fraud and passing bad checks.

It is yet to be discovered if the attorney who represented him in those instances was the same gentleman who stood by him, intervening during the Siege of Montagu-Manchester.  This part of the story never made it to the newspapers but is to be found in the transcript of September 6, 1984, Montagu vs. Montagu.

The story begins to unfold on page 4 with a question posed to Mr. Conquest, solicitor for Mrs. Montagu regarding the serving of the anticipated ex parte order by Judge Mrs. Lusink. 

"....I'm worrying the effect of having an ex parte order served on the husband if he is psychiatrically disturbed, and I was wondering whether we could get the help of the psychiatrist for the time of the service of the ex parte order.  Taking, you know, that I would be satisfied that an order should be made."

Mr. Conquest responded, "Sorry, I do not quite follow what your honor has got in mind there."

Verbatim from the transcript below: 

HER HONOR: What I have in mind is this:  here we have got a man who is under psychiatric treatment; he has been charged, and I mean, and he was found guilty, we he not, of assault?

MR. CONQUEST:  Indeed, your Honor, yes.

HER HONOUR:  That is right.  On somebody else.  But he is a man who is clearly disturbed.  Now, taking that I am prepared to make the ex parte order ---


HER HONOUR: ----bit alarmed at his --what is reaction might be. 

MR. CONQUEST:  So am I, your Honor, that is the reason why I am here, but I would happy, your Honour, to arrange -- to ascertain --I do know who the solicitor who has from time to time acted from - on behalf of the husband.  In fact, the affidavit - the co-operative affidavit is made by Miss Richards, who was in fact employed by that solicitor.

HER HONOUR:  Is this locally too?

MR. CONQUEST:  That solicitor is in Cranbourne.

Judge Lisink and Mr. Conquest edge into their concern the respondent might learn of his wife's whereabouts through the solicitor then acting for him.  They consider this and the ugly possibilities of what will happen the moment the respondent is served with papers.  The Judge is inclined to worry about ensuring Montagu's rights as a respondent are respected.  Mr. Conquest's concern is for what might happen to his client, Mrs. Montagu, when the papers are handed over.  A strong wish to hear from the defendant's solicitor is expressed and matters are briefly tabled so he can be brought into court.

ZOLTAN VARSZEGHY, solicitor for Montagu, is sworn in.  He affirms he is a solicitor with the Supreme Court of Victoria and this court, giving his address and other essential information.  He states he has been representing Mr. Montagu for eight months, handling a number of matters.

Then Judge Lisink asks, "Were you aboe to form any opinion albiet not as an expert medical pinion, as to the respondent's behavioural attitudes."  We learn Zoltan Varszeghy is well versed in the respondent's ways.

"I believe that this gentleman is probably the most dangerous client I have ever dealt with in seven years.  He is totally unreliable in relation to his attitude.  He has got streaks that at times come out of him where he does not appear to be himself or he does not appear to be on the same level of thinking as what I would class an ordinary person.  He has acted quite irrationally on a number of occasions, and the most dramatic being when he locked himself in his home, virtually sieged his home - I forget  the name of the street - it was in Cranbourne, and unfortunately a police siege ensued.  I volunteers to try to assist the police to bring him out of the home and during this time he slashed his wrists.  He had already slashed them prior to me being there, but he kept cutting himself open in the wrists.  He pointed a spear gun at a police officer who attended to ask him to vacate the premises decently. 

HER HONOUR:  Was that the basis of the subsequent charge, Mr. Varszeghy?

MR. CONQUEST:  No. your Honour, it was another one.

HER HONOUR: No, it was not? - - - No, your Honour.  This was just an incident where -- -

A few incidents with a spear gun?  yes---He - I think if I can give you a history of this, I may be able to bring some understanding of this gentleman.  He, as a result of that assault on this police officer - the police officer is presently on sick leave.  I hve spoken to him.  It is one of the main reasons that this gentleman is on sick leave.  He is nervous wreck.  I, myself, wasin there with him for three hours, at time with a spear gun pointed at me, at times with a policeman purring some pressure on.  It was quite a horrendous experience.  The police subsequently did apprehend him in the home.  He came out and he was apprehended.  He was taken to the Dandenong Psychiatric Clinic, and just, was just checked out the next day.  I then voluntarily took him back to the clinic with  police escort, unbeknown to him.  I told him that it was essential that he return to the clinic.  They would not have him.  The doctor refused to allow me to check him in.

Would that be Mr. Williamson? -- No.  This was a gentleman at the - this Dr. Williamson was wonderful man.  I then took him voluntarily to the Pine Lodge Clinic.

I see?---And Dr. Williamson attended him there.  Dr. Williamson has in fact toldme that he has psychopathic tendencies. 

As more details were shared with the court by Montagu's solicitor any objection to an ex parte order ceased.  Instead, the need for instant action on the part of the police, should it become necessary, became the focus of the discussion.

Alexander Montagu served a year for 29 counts of assault, credit card fraud and passing bad checks, but that was only part of the story. 

In 1988 an article appeared in The People which included this snap shot of the couple together.  
In the article, Marion steps forward to warn women about Alexander.  She cautions them on considering marriage with the man who is now Viscount of Mandeville because they are not divorced.  She has been unable to find him to serve papers.

Marion comments, "Our short marriage was hell."  "At first he was a real gentlemen, but changed dramatically into a monster."

You cannot tell a psychopath by the way he, or she, looks.

The divorce would not take place until three years after Alexander again married, this time to Wendy Buford Montagu, the mother of his two children. 

At some point Lady Mary Montagu, Alexander's mother, became involved in the issue of the marriage, which impacted the legitimacy of the two Manchester children. 

The papers were taken out by Lady Mary Montagu in Australia, expressed to Alexander, living with his wife and child in Orange County California.  Alexander signed them and sent them back to his mother, where they were filed in good order.   But despite the demands his mother made that the two remarry he neither remarried Wendy Buford, who had no idea he was still married.  Alexander had never told her about his first marriage and never mentioned the name of Marion Stoner. 

On one level it was just paperwork.  But on another level we see a highly psychopathic individual in operation.  

On  July 24, 2011, this article. "The bigamist Duke and his three wives, by Philip Sherwell, appearing in The Telegraph.

"His first wife, Marion Stoner, 61, said she was not even aware that he had married again before divorcing her until she was contacted by The Sunday Telegraph. She said their short-lived relationship in the early 1980s had ended when he tried to shoot her with a fishing speargun.
But the former Australian model’s marriage to the Duke was not ended legally until 1996, three years into his purported marriage to Wendy Buford, 44, a Californian law firm receptionist and mother of his two children.
Miss Buford, who in 1993 unwittingly entered into the bigamous relationship with the Duke, last week described her life with the peer as “15 years of heartache”.
Recognising her children’s claim on financial support from their father, which had been stopped when the offspring’s illegitimacy was revealed, Mr Justice Floyd ruled there was “absolutely no doubt that at the relevant times Wendy reasonably believed that the marriage was valid”, before their divorce in 2007.
Even the Duke’s 18-year-old American-born son Alexander, who has the title Viscount Mandeville, told this paper of his shock at learning of his and his sister’s illegitimacy. He also explained he is currently preparing to start his first job – as a cook in a fast-food outlet in Orange County, California, specialising in chicken sandwiches.
However, Laura Montagu, 49, the current duchess and another former model, is standing by her man, despite the disclosures about his past, which she portrayed as youthful indiscretions.
The court saga is the latest sorry twist for a family that is a living lesson in ducal decadence. The dukedom of Manchester was created in 1719 by George I, but there is little now left of its estates or wealth.
Marcus Scriven, the society author, has detailed the family’s self-destructive descent over a century of profligacy, fecklessness and philandering in his book Splendour and Squalor."

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

And now, about Nora Ephron and her example.

Because this actually touches on the maniacal behavior of the Manchester - Franklin – Gell Cabal I'm going to provide a longer and more complete answer than previously.

The following is a true and accurate statement regarding how Gigi, a wonderful woman who I had worked with for years, began loaning me money and why I have not yet, and I mean not yet, been able to repay her or her estate.

Gigi was my bookkeeper for a number of years while we were both active in Business and Professional Women, a national organization. For part of that time I was president of the local chapter while continuing to entirely support Morgan and believing the assurances of representatives from Green Hills Software, Inc., they would make good on paying me for dividends and purchase my stock when they went public.

Green Hills Software, Inc., Craig (Incest Porn) Franklin, Dan O'Dowd, and others acted with the intention of doing anything possible, legal or illegal, to deny me my marital share of property at the time of the divorce in 1998 – 1999. Since Craig openly discussed the likelihood I would die with several people less closely involved, I can only assume Dan also eagerly anticipated hearing I had died. Certainly, the behavior of both O'Dowds at the time of Arthur's motorcycle accident and thereafter was oddly cold since, prior to this, relations had been warm.

Additionally, I later learned Green Hills settled sexual harassment law suits for Craig and then, when his behavior became too disruptive, refused to allow him to have contact with female employees. This is when he hired a girl from Los Angeles to come up once a week to provide tax and bookkeeping services for him, according to Anne Fisher, who was Craig's girl friend for many years during this period. 

They had paid an attorney in Los Angeles to write a 'new' stock option agreement, special for Craig.  This was fraud, allowed by the Anderle court.  Anderle is one of the growing number of judges who sell verdicts.  Today I know much more about the problems with our judicial system than I did in 2005.   

By 2004 I was struggling to care for Arthur as well, and at the time this meant attempting to get him rehabilitation and studying what was available, which was not much. Additionally, Justin was living with me and I was his sole support in terms of psychiatric care. This was a major expense. Craig refused to honor the order of the court to pay for this expense. Justin's problem was deep depression caused by the ugly and manipulative behavior carried out by his father, Craig (Incest Porn) Franklin.

Craig had been physically abusive both toward me and toward Justin during the marriage. At this point we, his therapist and I, believed it was very possible Justin could become suicidal.

At the same time, I was trying to find a way to honor the order of the court and become self-supporting while caring for one son, for whom I was full time caretaker, and another son, with major problems.  At the same time I was sole support for Morgan, who had been threatened by John Fund, gone into hiding, and required enormous financial and emotional support.  

In my attempts to ensure Green Hills would pay in October of 2004 I retained Robert Hughes, who had been introduced to me by Jay E. Gell. To say, as I later realized, Hughes was a crook, understates the case. Here is some small part of the attempts on my part, Justin's part, and others who Hughes had ripped off. SITE, A God Moment  

But I did not realize this until early 2008. I continued to trust him. In 2007 he told me he was taking steps to force payment. I have no idea what he actually did because I later realized he routinely lied and never sent documentation.

The lies were one aspect of his behavior which traumatized me. But he also continually promised to pay me for work done for him and never paid. He also did this to Gina de Miranda. Later, we found evidence he had taken our work, profited from it enormously, and simply not paid us.  We suspected there were others 'working' for him in this way.  In a similar way he ripped off my son, Justin, with no regard for the trust we placed in him.  

During this period, 2007, Hughes asked me to suspend my other work and work on a project he said would guarantee an income for me and enable me to pay my bills. He wanted me to get Gigi involved as well. I did, to my great regret.

Gigi had started paying my bills without my knowledge in early 2005. I did not know this for around six months. I was horrified, but enormously grateful. By then I was living at the cabin with Arthur, without heat, little food, and working constantly to find writing jobs. During this period I began trying to at least get disability for Arthur. But with the unreliability of the car and the impact of the extreme Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which was the outcome of the train of abuses I suffered at the hands of the court in Santa Barbara, Green Hills Software, Inc., Hughes, Gell, and Morgan, this did not happen. I was nearly penniless.

Given the symptoms, I believe I suffered a stroke. I had no transportation to the hospital, no one to help except Arthur, who brought me water, until I could begin moving my hands again. I still suffer loss of sensation and limited use of my left side. This is one of the causes of my later receiving disability myself.

For a long time, months, I did not pick up the mail or answer the phone. I could not really talk and at the time my car was not working. A friend from Porterville dropped off groceries occasionally and when I had recovered enough I had the car towed. Another friend paid to have it repaired.

I did not want to tell Gigi what was happening. Even though I owed her much more than money she was my friend and I was afraid she would feel like she have to do something more. I could not bear to ask.

I should have ignored my pride and told her but I was not strong enough to do so. 

This was a terrifying time for me.  I thought constantly of what would happen to Arthur, if I died.   

If I had the money today I would repay Gig's family. I have not had even enough money to care for Arthur in more than the most minimum fashion. But this debt is one which will be honored and I work constantly to have the means to do so.    I have a list of debts. I will pay all of them, monetary and otherwise. Some people will be touched and delighted, since they told me not to bother.  Others, where the debt is both non-monetary and of the same nature of that owed by the Cabal, will be less joyous.  

What better use for any money I receive from writing the story of the Manchester – Franklin – Gell Conspiracy?

Much earlier, around 1993, Craig was lounging on our bed and I was working in the room. He was reading a book, “Heart Burn,” by Nora Ephron. If you are not familiar with the book you can read a short review. HERE

At the 7th month of her pregnancy, Nora Ephron learned that her husband had fallen in love with someone else. "The most unfair thing about this whole business," she writes, "is that I can't even date." That line sets the tone for this novel that Ephron based on her own marriage breakup. A court case resulted from the publication of this book, which tells you just how funny and potentially devastating it is. Her ex got a court order that she could never again write about him or their children. In the novel, instead of being a journalist, essayist, and humorist, the protagonist is a cookbook writer, so there are plenty of recipes sprinkled throughout. Published in 1983, Heartburn marked a turning point not only in Ephron's personal life but also in her writing career as she immediately gained entry into the film world as a writer, director, and producer. She wrote the screenplay for the movie based on this book - but don't see it. It's too angry; all the hilarity and subtle humor and caustic asides are missing.”

See, there is a precedent. And what is the likelihood any of the members of this cabal can write a book?