Pages

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

The anti-Christ is among us. Our survival depends on learning to recognize him.


The anti-Christ is among us. Our survival depends on learning to recognize him.
Psychopaths, they do evil for evil's sake.


Today we are witnessing the complete breakdown of our institutions. This is true in finance, banking, and government. The bald fact confronts us at the gas pump and in the supermarket. It is true in education, where we pay heavily to ensure our children learn only to find, instead, they are being propagandized and their presence in schools used to assert control over how they are raised.

War has become our continual condition. Young people are enticed and coerced into the military through promises, which will not be kept, and economic conditions which leave them no choices. They come home inflicted with PTSD,TBI, struggling to function. Many die of suicide, or on the streets, homeless.

Our courts have long since ceased being the dispassionate tribunal where the condition and wealth of those standing before it does not matter. Corruption, purchased verdicts, and greed, drive those who were entrusted with ensuring equal access to justice for all Americans.

Law enforcement, police, prisons, and its management and infrastructure, moved into fast forward over a decade ago. The police know nothing about the Constitution or our rights. Their training is militarized. Prisons have become corporate profit centers, expanding due to the proliferation of laws which bolster their bottom line, sucking money out of the pockets of Americans.

We have been told it is right and proper to bail out irresponsible and predatory corporations - but individuals who paid into Social Security must pull in their belts and live on less on less – even as the cost of food continues to climb monthly, edging them toward starvation.

Organic dairies and gardening are under attack, while GMO is fast tracked.

The middle class has all but disappeared, leaving only the wealthy - and the rest of us.

In every part we confront the growth of restrictions and controls, limitations of our right to choose for ourselves.

We look into each others eyes and ask, “What happened?”

You've heard many theories and watched as attempts to correct the corruption failed. Checks and balances have also been hijacked. These are all failing because the foundational problem was not recognized.

The electoral process has been hijacked. From the presentation of candidates, until the votes are counted, the whole is managed through a process which includes media owned by what I call Greedville, in the case of media seven large, global corporations which are all controlled by psychopaths. Information, now divorced from facts, is filtered through systems for nomination and voting managed outside of the public view.

The presence of psychopaths among us is the problem.

Normal people could never pull this off. Normal people have consciences. Our unseen problem has been those without conscience, the psychopathic, who concentrate where they have access to power, changing institutional practices and culture, looting the system.

Humanity needs to understand and take action. In this series we will lay out causes and what can be done to take back our world.

  • Understand psychopathy through the case of Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester, psychopath.
  • The strategies used by psychopaths
  • How our institutions fail to account for psychopathic behavior.
  • How psychopaths manipulate the emotionally normal to work for them.
  • Understand the impact of their presence among us.


Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester
The Early Life of a Psychopath

Allow me to introduce you to the poster boy for Psychopathy, His Grace, Alexander, the 13th Duke of Manchester, or Alexander Montagu, though during his criminal career he has used other names in plenty. He is not a smart psychopath, but his life illustrates many truths about the condition.

Alexander Montagu is one of the hundreds of thousands of those without conscience walking among us. This assertion is supported by a wealth of evidence from multiple sources over a period spanning decades.  
 His condition was first identified by a psychiatrist named Dr. Barry Williamson, who attended him in 1984 when he was institutionalized for assault with a spear gun and attempted suicide.  At the time he was on welfare, received because he was deemed 'disabled.'
Montagu was treated at Pine Lodge Clinic, according to the transcript.   
Dr. Williamson's  comment, made to Montagu's solicitor Mr. Zoltan Varszeghy, who has now returned to Hungary, is included. The comment entered into the court record was, “Dr. Williamson attended him there. Dr. Williamson has in fact told me he has psychopathic tendencies.” The full transcript can be viewed. Bottom of page 9.
Montagu was then facing charges of assault against his wife and at least one police officer with a spear gun.
 His behavior as a child was disruptive, both according to his mother, this supplied in emails, and according to his brother Kimble, information provided in a declaration given in 2011.
Alexander was expelled twenty times from the school he attended in Beverly Hills and from every other school where he was placed, according  to his mother, Lady Mary Montagu. He failed to develop relationships with either of his siblings, both of whom grew up to live normal, stable, lives.
This is an identifying characteristic of a psychopath.
 His relationship with his mother is one of demanding his needs be serviced while he provides nothing in return. 
Another psychopathic characteristic; he is entitled.
He has borrowed money from his sister, Emma, and never repaid the funds and his brother, Kimble was also called upon for assistance, despite the fact Kimble is not close to him and so testified in his declaration given under penalty of perjury for the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in July of 2011.
 Borrowing money from others, or receiving services, activates a strategy which his former wife,Wendy Buford, reported seeing played out many times.  
After receiving funds or services Montagu  distances himself from the individual, who he vilifies.  He then picks a fight, and refuses to carry through with his promise for payment or repayment.  It is always their fault, never his. 
This is the concept of 'splitting,' used by the disordered. The targeted victim is either all good, when they are being used; or all bad, when he is finished with them. 
This is a standard strategy common to psychopaths.
The vilification strategy also includes assault by slander, a massive campaign to destroy the reputation of the individual who is no longer useful to him. Relatives, journalists, business partners, former wives, and friends have all experienced this parting gift from Montagu.
When discovered in a crime Montagu blames others. During Montagu's recent arraignment for passing a bad check in Las Vegas he, or his wife, variously claimed it was a case of mistaken identity, use of the wrong checkbook, or a plot carried out to embarrass him.  
This frequently works for him  because he is titled, and because, as a psychopath, he shows no sense of guilt or shame.  He lies smoothly and constantly, remaking reality as he believes it will work to persuade his victim to perform as he wants. 
Having thoroughly victimized his target Montagu positions himself as the victim.  This is a strategy known as, the 'Turn Around.'
This also is characteristic of psychopaths.
All successful con men are psychopaths.  Police in Australia identified Alexander Montagu as a "highly successful con-man,' by the time he was 29 years of age, this remark memorialized in an article written about him in the Australian Post in May of 1991.  This classification of psychopath is not necessarily violent, but is, nonetheless, psychopathic.  Murderers such as Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson, John Wayne Gacy may be serial killers, smiling as they murder, but most psychopaths, such as Montagu, are subclinical, meaning they avoid punishment because their crimes are financial or less egregious forms of abuse than murder - but still costly and damaging to their victims.
This term, used by Robert Hare, the recognized world expert on psychopathy, includes individuals who, who, like Montagu are dangerous and unpredictable.



A difference in the brain
 The source of psychopathy is in the brain itself.   A  study carried out at the University of Wisconsin-Madison by researchers found a variance while studying images of prisoners’ brains.  These revealed that psychopaths have reduced connections between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), the part of the brain responsible for sentiments such as empathy and guilt, and the amygdala,  reconciling fear and anxiety
Because psychopaths do not feel emotions,fear or empathy, they do not experience love or guilt.  Normal humans reference emotional states and their actions and choices are dictated and limited by their feelings. These characteristics are shared by all normal humans and human institutions are designed, taking into account concern for others and a working conscience.
A normal individual cannot lie without experiencing anxiety. This is the basis of the Lie Detector.  A psychopath feels no anxiety when he is lying, for him lying is normal behavior.  This helps to explain how our institutions have been converted by the psychopathic for their own profit. As normal humans we sense when someone is anxious, this can lead us to believe they are lying – and to the assumption those without anxiety are telling the truth.
 Psychopaths who are subclinical, formulate their strategies for getting what they want from experimenting with what works to accomplish their goals. Over the last centuries, and especially during the 20th Century, psychopaths have intentionally, and actively, worked to convert our institutions to a centralized model which allowed them to have control.
How this took place is the subject of a later article.
An examination of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal government, finance, our infrastructure for regulation, among others, shows how these can, in effect, become operational tools for the highly psychopathic, who are concentrated in these specific areas.
Estimates of the percentage of the psychopathic in finance is believed to be far larger than the general population. Theories of the impact of psychopaths on corporate culture have been, according to Robert Hare, PhD., and growing number of experts and observers, highly significant.
In a paper appearing in the Journal of Business Ethics, 2011, “The Corporate Psychopaths Theory for Global Financial Crisis,” written by Clive R. Boddy and copyrighted by Springer, cites the need for further study of the impact of psychopaths in the corporate environment, pointing out the 'strengths' of psychopaths, charisma, self-confidence, and presentation, allow them to claim credit for successes for which they are not responsible. Since they lack conscience this is most likely to happen. Psychopaths are not troubled when they walk away with huge remuneration, leaving the company to falter and die. In recent days, we have often watches this take place.
The theory is receiving serious consideration in business and studies are continuing.
Psychopaths operating on the level of banking, finance, and other institutions function on a higher level level than Montagu. They are more intelligent and are more able to emulate emotions. They are smoother and far more difficult to identify.
Montagu is an example of a lower level psychopath, he routinely threatens violence and has been violent, witness his several convictions for assault in Australia.  He, however, learned to modify the amount of violence to ensure he would not again face incarceration.
All psychopaths tend to find successful strategies and repeat them. Psychopaths, regardless of intelligence, are limited in innovation. But they are skilled in manipulation and control. They have a radar sense of knowing what the normal person expects and use this to gain trust and access to whatever they are trying obtain from the victim. They wolves in sheep's clothing, waiting for the moment to strike.
Manipulation and control are standard tools for psychopaths.
Montagu's subsequent acts illustrate the desire for immediate gratification, ability to ignore potential hazards, and ability to rewrite reality to fit into the lies he was telling to engage possible victims.
This is typical of the psychopath, category - Egocentric and Grandiose
In 1988 Montagu had openly solicited marriage by purchase for the title of Duchess. In another article, titled, “My Barmy Marriage.” written the same year in The People, Marion Stoner reacts, offering her story, having read Montagu was attempting to profit by marriage.
She had been unable to find him to serve papers, she reported in the article. She goes on to outline what transpired to a small degree. Her Application for Separation  , given under penalty of perjury, is more forthcoming and reads like a horror story. Other documents, found here, support her statements.
1991 found Montagu arrested for entering Canada. The title of the article, Diana's Cousin Selling Title appeared on September 21, 1991  in the Sun Journal. The reason for his arrest appears at the end, “He was arrested for allegedly entering Canada illegally from Hong Kong on June 17th. Immigration officials say he failed to disclose 29 criminal convictions for fraud and assault in Australia.”
Montagu knew he was not divorced from his first wife, Marion Stoner, who he had assaulted and lethally threatened with a spear gun, after less than three months of marriage. The spear missed Marion's friend's head, also present, by half an inch.
Today Montagu asserts, against all existing proof, several conflicting stories. He tells people Marion Stoner never existed. He tells people the wedding was a gag. He tells people his mother flubbed the annulment, and he tells people his mother had a long term plot to get the title of Duke for his younger brother. The story used depends on what he thinks will work.
Proof means nothing to a psychopath. Reality is what they say it is. This can sometimes work against them in several ways.


Viscount Mandeville solves the problem of being deported and homeless.
And, as a testament to how easily the psychopath, even a less intelligent psychopath, can manipulate normal people, let us consider how Montagu managed to stay in a relationship with Wendy Buford Montagu for 15 years, years fraught with trauma for her.
Montagu originally married Wendy because he was running out of money and was in danger of being deported. Married to an American woman with a job evidently became his goal. Wendy reported Alexander was supposedly living with his business partner but had his own car. She later learned he was borrowing the car owned by his business partner's girl friend, claiming to own it.
The entire relationship can truthfully be characterized as one outrage after another.
Montagu married Buford in 1993, just before the birth of their son, Alexander, Jr., his first act was to demand she visit the immigration office to prove they were legally married (a lie) so he could evade deportation, which he said was about to take place due to the threats of his business partner. Within weeks of their first date he had insinuated himself into her apartment and was using her car as his own. His business partner's girl friend had reclaimed her automobile.
Over the next 15 years the couple was evicted 11 times, each time because Alexander spent the money for rent or the mortgage elsewhere. Wendy was never permitted to know anything about their finances. Asking if the rent was paid was pointless. Alexander would always lie.
When evicted for non-payment of rent or mortgage, he focused anger on the landlord, routinely destroying the property. This has included pouring cement down the toilets. according to his present wife Laura.  With Montagu the barrage of such behavior was constant and consistent, according to his wife of 15 years, Wendy Buford Montagu.  
 Since Montagu never had a job it was his wife's income from her job which was garnisheed.  Today, Wendy is still paying off these debts.
Although his mother, Lady Mary, carried the paperwork for the Stoner divorce in 1996, asking Alexander only to sign and return papers.
After the divorce Lady Mary ordered him to remarry Wendy, who had no idea he had been married to Marion Stoner at the time of their wedding. Alexander never mentioned the matter. He had lied on their marriage license, checking, 'never married,' instead of 'married but annulled,' which had been an option. He had not mentioned an annulment, but one of his alternative reality stories would be blaming his mother for not finishing an annulment which there is no record had ever been filed.
Yet if Alexander had not, himself, informed the Trustees, the matter would have died there. Alexander, whose life, like all psychopaths, is filled with chaos, decided to divorce Wendy after he succeeded to the title of Duke in 2002, while waiting for the sale of the Manchester Jewels to provide him with funds.
Wendy could not help but notice he started going to the tanning salon, had his teeth redone, and spending other money on himself from a household budget which was slim at best. Overweight, he also had a colon reduction so he could slim down. Naturally, he lied to Wendy, telling her the surgery was covered by insurance and was for his back. This deception worked for him until she came to pick him up at the hospital and asked the nurse how the back surgery had gone.
Their divorce from a non-existent marriage was orchestrated by Montagu with the intention of gaining custody of the children so Wendy would be required to pay him both alimony and child support.
Filing a false report of violence, he received a temporary order excluding her from the family home. Wendy, realizing what was happening, cooperated completely with the court and went through an intense, expensive, and humiliating process which proved she did not take drugs, was not an alcoholic, and was not violent. Wendy was awarded physical custody of both children, who were turned over to her without any of their possessions and dressed in only their pajamas.
Alexander made none of the court ordered payments for tests he had demanded, though the court had insisted he do so. Montagu had stolen all of Wendy's property, evidently selling her family heirlooms and jewelry. Wendy has received none of her possessions. All Montagu offered to give her were some old clothes.
Making Wendy disappear must finally have occurred to him as a solution to his problem. Fortunately for her, the individual Montagu asked to carry out the act, who was not psychopathic, called her and warned her what had been offered him. Her call to local detectives made this course too risky for Montagu to pursue. 
Montagu had attempted to hide his assets and bank accounts. These had been discovered through subpoena, including one account holding nearly one millions dollars. He was confronted with the records on the stand and still tried to lie his way out, claiming it could not be his account.
Montagu left the area, never paying the court ordered support for his children or alimony. The court proved entirely unable to cope with someone for whom deceit was natural and who never paid his bills.
Normal people follow the rules. Psychopaths ignore them.



Charges of Bigamy are proved.
Two years after their divorce was over, 2009, evidently hoping the monies paid to the children would be directed to him by the Trust if his children were known to be illegitimate, he so informed the Trustees.
The Trustees were forced to stop the payments to the children, made on their behalf as beneficiaries, which had made up for the support not received by their father. After short consideration the Trustees filed a law suit, intended to clarify and affirm their wish to continue payments, not allowed under existing law.
The law suit was filed in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division and heard on July 19th 2011. The Trustees could restart payments to the straitened family. In the immediate aftermath a spate of articles hit papers across the world, naming Montagu as a bigamist, which examination of the existing documents and testimony had proven him to be.
Proof means nothing to a psychopath. Realizing the public relations disaster he had wrought, Montagu began to whine, asking for someone to prove someone else was responsible.
With the negative weight of the world opinion directed at him, not a shred of shame or contrition surfaced. Consideration for what his children had suffered, what he had done to his former wife, were ignored. The fact he was also proven to have committed massive fraud against his former wife, he also ignored, focusing only on himself.
His only interaction with his children is limited to calling them up to slander their mother and make demands. This reached a high, or low point, when he called his 12 year old daughter, Ashley, to describe pictures he had taken of her mother, clearly asleep in her bed unclothed. He told his daughter he had arranged to sell these to a porn site online. The taped message exists and will soon be back up online.
Whatever happens is always blamed on someone else. Bringing it full circle, this was true of his childhood and, as you read articles written about him over his life time, you see this has been  consistent.  He shows no sense of shame, no empathy, no compassion.  
Judge Margaret McMurdo, before whom Montagu appeared in Australia for stealing and selling rental cars in 1991, advised him to continue his psychiatric care,  "You need it," she commented.   It has been noted by others in the legal profession he lives in a fantasy world and does not relate to reality.  The court was unable to cope with Montagu, releasing him to prey again, even though by 1991 there was a solid record of his crimes.



The Direction Forward – A Solution
During the 80's and 90's psychiatry believed psychopaths could be 'cured.'  This hopeful assessment has now been largely abandoned, due to the insights gained through the work of Robert Hare, Ph.D., who has demonstrated the fact psychopaths receiving counseling benefit, but only by becoming more effective psychopaths. 
It is time we focused on the source of the problem and, in cooperation with reform movements, began taking psychopaths into account.
Studying the history of Alexander, Duke of Manchester, provides evidentiary proof of the inability of courts on three continents to cope with the extreme likelihood he would, upon release, again look for unwitting victims. The number of Montagu's victims doubtless number in the hundreds. As tragic as this is, it cannot be compared to the disastrous outcome from psychopaths who infest our institutions, converting for their own profit. Millions of Americans are, today, their victims. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
We must stop the psychopathic from participation, where a conscience and empathy are essential. Those areas are government, corporations with government contracts, our courts, our schools, and all entities funded by or in contractual relationships with government.
The Hare test for psychopathy, given by a qualified and trained professional is very reliable, remarkably so, when used by non-law enforcement. Hare expressed reservations at having it used more widely and, there are indications this might prove to be the case, according to an article, Can A Test Really Tell Who's A Psychopath? by Alix Spiegel appearing on NPR. But the problem arises from tests given by individuals, who though trained, are being paid by parties with a vested interest in a specific outcome. If tests are given blind, with no information provided to the person administering the test, this would not be an issue.
Hare himself has suggested it be used for those in government, corporations, courts, including attorneys, and in law enforcement. This would be given upon application for employment or, now to continue employment.
We don't need legislation to enact this measure. Before voting for candidates, we demand they be tested,in effect, certified non-psychopathic, a kind of Honesty Bond. Some corporations will willingly test their officers and upper level employees. We buy from them, boycotting all others.
Ordinary corruption, we can handle.



A Note:
One week from today is Easter, the yearly celebration of the resurrection of Christ, a man who exemplifies Love. Eerily, the psychopathic exemplify the anti-Christ. Devoid of conscience and compassion, psychopaths share the characteristics of the devil, doing evil for evil's sake. As I considered this I felt a chill run across my back.



Many have wondered when the Anti-Christ, long predicted, would be known. Many individuals and institutions have been suggested in this role. The threat represented by the anti-Christ seemed to come from all around us but be no place specific.
A threat spread among us would have that effect. Not knowing, we could not see, looking into faced that seem all too human.

Monday, March 05, 2012

Crane and the Kochs - the Fascist State Eats Its Own



What does Anna Nicole Smith (Left) have in common with Kathryn Washburn Niskanen(Right)? You might ask.

On March 1st the Koch Brothers filed a law suit against Widow Niskanen in an attempt to force her to sell her inherited interest in Cato Institute to them. The holding of one quarter of the shares of Cato, held until his death by her late husband, was left as one third to his widow, one third to Cato, and a third to the Institute For Justice, according to TPM Muckraker.

But there is far more story here than meets the eye, part of which is the lingering image of Anna Nicole Smith, the gorgeous, blond, nubile woman who married creaky, aged billionaire Howard Marshall, II, and so laid claim to an unimaginably valuable slug of stock in Koch Industries, the only shares in the very privately held company not owned by family members. The stock amounted to 16% of Koch Industries. The case went to the Supreme Court, firing the imaginations of Americans, enticed by the provocative form and story of Anna Nicole. But Americans did not understand what was really at issue.

Today, with the parallel revelations of manipulation funded by the Kochs in covert manipulations of the initiative process across the country and intrusions into local self-determination, this may began to dawn.

In 2006 I was contacted by Hart Williams, who had begun to investigate the Kochs and the denizens of Cato. Today, you can benefit from his detailed and accurate insights at HartWilliams.com. We know more than we did, but not enough.

Despite diligent research, the corporate books for Koch Industries still hold secrets thought to reveal cost plus contracts, unusual treatment by courts and government agencies that normally are charged with protecting the public, and other information lending insights to their relations with the Bush administration. Today, given the present, very political trajectory of the Brothers Koch, these events are well worth revisiting.

The bottom line of the Koch's profits include a string of offenses against public decency and safety of monumental proportions which were 'forgiven' by the Bushes, then in power.

In late 2000 it seemed some of these corporate policies might be catching up with Koch; they were hit with a 97-count indictment related to a cover up of discharge of more than 15 times the legal limit of benzene, a carcinogen, from a refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. Koch faced penalties of $350, 000,000.00, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
Four Koch employees were also charged individually, facing up to 35 years in prison according to the same source. The lawsuits were settled three months into the Bush Administration. Koch plead guilty to one count of concealment, agreed to pay 20,000,000. All criminal charges were dropped by the Justice Department.
According to Greg Palast, published on BBC.com, in May of 2001, Koch Industries was then the third largest industry donor to the Bush Campaign.
In another case, Koch was sued by the government in 1995 and 1997 over a reported 300 oil spills at pipelines owned and operated by the company. Those lawsuits sought from $71 million to $214 million in penalties for the spills, which dumped an estimated three million gallons of oil into lakes and streams in six states.
On January 13, 2000, the Justice Department settled that case for $35 million in fines, according again to the Center for Public Integrity.
Brad Goldstein
Corporate Communications Director
(561) 640-8822
brad_goldstein@oxbow.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
But the back story is even deeper. Politico writes, “The group (Cato) had four shareholders until last year: Charles Koch; David Koch; Edward H. Crane III, Cato’s president; and William A. Niskanen,” what is left out is the curious exclusion of the founding shareholder left unnamed.

Murray Rothbard, the voice of the Austrian Economics in the last half of the 20th Century, is the shareholder who goes unmentioned. Murray was a founding member of the board for Cato until kicked off in 1981 for the hideous crime of disagreeing with Ed Crane.

The bi-Monthly Newsletter for The Libertarian Forum for January – April of 1981 ran on its front page an article headlined as, “Purged from Cato! It Usually Ends With Ed Crane.” Sounding entirely like Murray the article begins, “On Black Friday, March 27th, 1981, at 9:00 A. M. in San Francisco, the “libertarian” power elite of the Cato Institute, consisting of President Edward H. Crane, III and Other Shareholder Charles G. Koch, revealed its true nature and its cloven hoof. Crane, aided and abetted by Koch, ordered me to leave Cato's regular quarterly board meeting, even though I am a shareholder and a founding board member of the Cato Institute. The Crane/Koch action was not only iniquitous and high-handed but also illegal, as my attorneys informed them before and during the meeting. They didn't care. What's more, as will be explained shortly, in order to accomplish this foul deed to their own satisfaction, Crane/Koch literally appropriated and confiscated the shares which I have naively left in the Cato Witchita office for “safekeeping”, an act clearly in violation of our agreement as well as contrary to every tenet of libertarian principle.”

Murray was the spokesman for free market economics. Additionally, he had challenged the hold of Ayn Rand on the minds of Libertarians. Simultaneously, his voice was muted and replaced by Milton Friedman, who has never been a proponent of free market economics but is, rather, an adherent of the Chicago School of Economics. The difference between the two is significant. Friedman was entirely open to government intervention. As a proponent of the free market Rothbard opposed the use of legislation in human action and was a stalwart voice for individual rights, speaking out for unity between right and left. Retrospectively, this and not a 'personal conflict' was the source of Murray's ejection from Cato.

Koch Industries might have been free market during the life time of its founder, Fred C. Koch, the father of Charles and David, but, today, it is a solidly entrenched member of the Military Industrial Complex, or Greedville, as I call the constellation of banking, oil, war contracting, pharmaceutical, and other interests.

The Kochs, arguably, masterminded the conversion of the term, 'free market' into something very different, a justification of governmental subsidies which continue to fatten their bottom line, the antitheses of the direction intended by the original libertarian movement. In this, they had the eager assistance of Ed Crane, who is remembered in song, and with bitterness, by many.

Ed Crane is Cato's president, he keeps his standards high
He says he runs a trim, taut ship – just like Captain Bly.
The similarity is really nothing but a joke.
For there'll be no mutiny on the bounty of Billionaire Charles Koch.”
Lyrics by an obscure songster named A C Franklin, 1979

But the libertarian movement, suppressed by the actions of the Kochs and Cato, remained small. Today the mainstream believes the positions of Cato and Koch are Libertarian when nothing could be further from the truth.

It cost the Kochs to start Cato but the conversion of ideas, from freedom to those which supported the tenets of fascism, has paid off – for them. Solidifying their control of Cato was, and remains, all about the money.

The predatory strategies of the Koch Brothers were not popular, even in their own family. The Koch family came into enormous conflict on how the fortunes would be handled that reflect some of the questionable strategies that founded those fortunes, continuing to actively divide those involved.

Koch Brother, Bill, interviewed on 60 minutes August 21, 2001, said, "It was – was my family company. I was out of it," he says. "But that’s what appalled me so much... I did not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon organized crime."

Of the four brothers who inherited control of Rock Island Oil & Refining Co., at the death of their father, Fred Koch, in 1967, Charles and David managed to get a lock on control, renaming the megacorporation Koch Industries. The other two brothers, Fred, Jr. and William, retreated, having lost what seems to be an attempt to change the direction of the corporation.

The guy inside Koch who orchestrates their PR and political strategy is named.....you will not believe this but I could not make it up......Rich Fink. Their money, how they get in and what they will do to lower their costs and hang onto that money are some of the things they want to keep private.

Koch Industries was hit by the largest judgment for personal liability in history over the incineration of Danielle Smalley and a friend on Aug. 24, 1996. The cause was a defective high-pressure gas pipeline that exploded, taking the lives of the two teenagers. Both were 17. The amount named by the jury was 296 million dollars. Punitive damage awards exist to make it possible to hit those with money and power who act with blatant disregard of others. This, although Koch Industries admitted in court it had not properly maintained the lines and had failed to tell the public, according to the site of the attorney representing the Smalleys, Jim Arnold and Associates. Conveniently enough for Koch Industries, the Texas court forced a reduction in the award that meant that Danielle's father had to sign a nondisclosure agreement on the amount awarded.

The Smalley case was only one of three hundred spills caused over six states in the 90s for which Koch Industries was fined according to Planet Ark.

Guess who was governor in Texas at the time? George W. Bush.

In 1992 a wedding took place at Camp David between Doro Bush and Robert Koch. When you notice the names and wonder about the relationship there you find, despite the visibility of the families, you cannot discover if Robert Koch is related to the Koch's who founded Koch Industries unless you really dig.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Howard_Marshall_II

That is a small part of the real story. You can't get it all in an article and someday I will get around to writing the book.

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Anna Nicole Smith and her secret connection to the Bush and the Inner Cabal of power in America today.

I'm republishing this as it seems to have disappeared from the web. 

You probably think that the hysteria over the Anna Nicole Smith case is all media hype. Most of it is, naturally. Gorgeous, blond, nubile woman, married creaky, aged billionaire, inherits unimaginably enormous slug of cash and is done wrong by his rapacious, greedy relatives. Gorgeous woman goes to court and gets a hearing from the Supreme Court after being demeaned, dissed by these same pompous creeps. That is the story that had fired the imaginations of Americans. But the REAL story is actually much more exciting leading us into the inner chambers of power of the multigenerational Robber Barons who have worked so hard to file the serial numbers off the Constitution and transfer owner ship of America to themselves. 

What Anna Nicole Smith stood to inherit was stock in a secretive, NeoCon associate, Koch Industries. Privately held companies cannot be forced to reveal their corporate books by anyone but a stock holder. Anna Nicole Smith could have forced Koch Industries, the company whose stock she inherited, to show her the books if she had been so inclined. Those corporate books are thought to reveal cost plus contracts, unusual treatment by courts and government agencies that normally are charged with protecting the public, and other information that brings into question their relations with the Bush administration.a Koch presence in Vietnam with Halliburton and the same relationship going on today in Iraq. The bottom line is also purported to show just what Koch Industries will do to avoid accountability for killing people, even American teenagers not yet sucked into wars.

In late 2000 it seemed that some of these corporate policies might be catching up with Koch; they were hit with a 97-count indictment related to a cover up of discharge of more than 15 times the legal limit of benzene, a carcinogen, from a refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. Koch faced penalties of $350, 000,000.00, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

The company faced penalties of more than $350 million. Four Koch employees were also charged individually, facing up to 35 years in prison according to the same source. The lawsuits were settled three months into the Bush Administration. Koch plead guilty to one count of concealment, agreed to pay 20,000,000. All criminal charges were dropped by the Justice Department.

According to Greg Palast, published on BBC.com, in May of 2001, Koch Industries was then the third largest industry donor to the Bush Campaign.

In another case, Koch was sued by the government in 1995 and 1997 over a reported 300 oil spills at pipelines owned and operated by the company. Those lawsuits sought from $71 million to $214 million in penalties for the spills, which dumped an estimated three million gallons of oil into lakes and streams in six states.

On January 13, 2000, the Justice Department settled that case for $35 million in fines, according again to the Center for Public Integrity. Koch Brother, Bill, interviewed on 60 minutes August 21, 2001, said, "It was – was my family company. I was out of it," he says. "But that’s what appalled me so much... I did not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon organized crime."

Brad Goldstein
Corporate Communications Director
(561) 640-8822
brad_goldstein@oxbow.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml

Did Anna Nicole Smith understand what is at stake? Maybe, maybe not. But these are the facts of what hinged on the court case still playing out.

Most people think we are talking about the brown, bubbly drink spelled Coke when they first hear about Koch Industries, but the brown fluid at the foundation of the Koch fortune is oil. The viscosity is different, both are bad for us, but one we know about and the other lurks, unseen, for the most part, in the halls of power. Koch Industries pays a bundle every year to avoid publicity. Their holdings and business stretch like tentacles into every imaginable industry that is pumping Americans dry.

When Anna Nicole Smith became a widow she acquired a claim on the stock held in trust that her husband, Howard Marshall, II, owned. That stock amounts to 16% of Koch Industries. Like many oil families the issue of ethics often went by the way side. The Koch and Marshall families were no different. Conflict on how the fortunes would be handled that reflect some of the questionable strategies that founded those fortunes, continue to actively divide those involved.

Of the four brothers who inherited control of Rock Island Oil & Refining Co., at the death of their father, Fred Koch, in 1967, Charles and David managed to get a lock on control, renaming the megacorporation Koch Industries. The other two brothers, Fred, Jr. and William, retreated, having lost what seems to be an attempt to change the direction of the corporation.

The guy inside Koch who orchestrates their PR and political strategy is named.....you will not believe this but I could not make it up......Rich Fink. Their money, how they get in and what they will do to lower their costs and hang onto that money are some of the things they want to keep private.

Koch Industries was hit by the largest judgment for personal liability in history over the incineration of Danielle Smalley and a friend on Aug. 24, 1996. The cause was a defective high-pressure gas pipeline that exploded, taking the lives of the two teenagers. Both were 17. The amount named by the jury was 296 million dollars. Punitive damage awards exist to make it possible to hit those with money and power to act with blatant disregard of others. This although Koch Industries admitted in court it had not properly maintained the lines and had failed to tell the public, according to the site of the attorney representing the Smalleys, Jim Arnold and Associates. Conveniently enough for Koch Industries the Texas court forced a reduction in the award that meant that Danielle's father had to sign a nondisclosure agreement on the amount awarded.

The Smalley case was only one of three hundred spills caused by over six states in the 90s for which Koch Industries was fined according to Planet Ark.

Guess who was governor in Texas at the time? George W. Bush.

In 1992 a wedding took place at Camp David between Doro Bush and Robert Koch. When you notice the names and wonder about the relationship there you find that despite the visibility of the families you cannot discover if Robert Koch is related to the Koch's who founded Koch Industries unless you really dig.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Howard_Marshall_II

That is the real story. It explains the desperate need to hold on to that inheritance. Sometimes it is the money and sometimes it is hiding the truth. When you bottom line depends on hiding the truth spending money to accomplish that end is just business as usual.

Sunday, February 05, 2012

The Corporate Shell Game of Presidential Politics – Nix on Newt






One by one a long list of GOP 'hopefuls' have appeared, albeit briefly, in the role of 'contender.' One by one they have been shot down by their own fatal flaws, demolishing the carefully constructed 'image' needed to make a base of popular support credible. The focus of enthusiasm, by the media and GOP hacks, for Newt Gingrich for president, is the latest corporate entry in a line up of manufactured candidates.
As we watch the pea pass between the shells of this media game we should consider the unexpressed reality never understood by the public and carefully ignored by the media.
It is a Tail Wagging the Dog Moment, constructed to ensure there is no disruption of the filming, which no longer bears any relationship to the Constitutional, electoral, process by which Americans were intended to govern themselves. The present 'presidential' campaign is a carefully staged disinformation operation intended only to distract us.
Think of the GOP nominating process as a horse race. The 'candidates' are owned by corporate interests with two exceptions, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. They can be disregarded for purposes of this article.
What you see is an essential component of the business plan of a relatively small number of enormously wealthy multinational corporations operating solely for their own profit and in blatant disregard of the Constitution. The presidency became a corporate sinecure many election cycles ago. The president holds power but the power is exercised from posher offices in locations far less public. Owning the occupant of the office of president is, therefore, very useful to the conglomerate of corporations who 'win the race.' Money spent on 'elections' is money well invested.
Owning the president is worth more than owning a bushel of Senators and Congressmen, though these are also essential to success. Also needed to delude Americans are public relations firms, 'think tanks,' which provide justifications for government control, publishing houses, 'political consultants' (Example, Karl Rove) and political operatives who pretend they are journalists (example, John Fund.) They in come both flavors, GOP and DEM, of course, depending on your needs.
Also indicated are 'strong relationships' with academia, who, paid relatively small amounts of money, provide a wealth of benefits, including producing studies which prove anything you need proved, despite the truth of the matter.
I use the friendly term, Greedville to refer to the constellation of banks, oil companies, chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others who actually own and control our courts and government today. The history of the term originates from my interactions with one such company and the fact the absolute number of such companies involved is barely the size of a small American town, for instance Santa Barbara.
For corporations, determining which candidate to 'buy' and 'run' is a business expense, nothing, more, nothing less. Greedville may grumble at the cost but the corporate coffers open generously and they pay. They are, after all, professionals, ruthlessly sharp operators, who understand you need to pay for what you get.



The GREEDVILLE Business Model
The Greedville model depends on controlling and limiting the choices available to Americans. first and foremost. Gteedville knows where their profits originate and they use what works to ensure their profits continue to roll in unabated.
Let's look at a simplified, but real-life, scenario.
You are an oil company who really wants to pump the reservoirs in a foreign country which prefers to sell to someone else, say Russia and France. Let's say the country is Iraq. So you manufacture a justification for invading just before Russia and France begin their operations using a Tragic Event which is blamed on people who are not Iraqi but who may have distant cousins who look Arab. In this case the Tragic Event is 9/11. It works.
Ancillary benefits to other Greedville interests are enormous and they have supported you in this endeavor. In fact, nearly everyone from Greedville benefits as the money rolls in. Many of the Greedville folks have been doing exactly the same thing for generations, and have long viewed government as their natural ally and partner in business. The relationship stretched back to mercantilism – and to the Salem Witchcraft Trials, which were really about the use of state power to use asset forfeiture, never about witchcraft.
Making something illegal is nearly as profitable as war.
War is a great source for profits, if you doubt this read, “War is a Racket,” by Major General Smedley Butler. You can read the book online. Butler was the most highly respected military figure in America in the first part of the 20th Century. Yet he came to know he was, in his words, “ a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
War provides government contracts, often cost plus contracts, which enrich the corporate bottom line with heady speed. Therefore, rhetoric which keeps the nation at war is to be heavily subsidized. This is a business expense, first and last. Both large and smaller, ambitious companies are always very pro-war and 'patriotic.' Their children are unlikely to serve in the armed forces.
For our simplified purposes here let's look at the main 'industries' which fall in the Military-Industrial Multi-National category, other words, the happy neighborhoods. of Greedville.
Banking and finance, all related to the simple service of assisting people in making transactions, proved to be too fraught with the potential for theft to be resisted. So today, instead of modest profits for doing something simple you can hear the sound of sucking all the way to the Hawaiian Islands from the center of Wall Street, where the Discount Window at the FED is always busy, handing out money guaranteed by Americans to institutions who 'loan' it to back to us, charging interest while risking nothing.
Big Pharma, which traces its roots to the Opium Wars for its funding, ensures you pay hundreds of times what a 'remedy' is worth while keeping its Congresspersons and government busy at the task of denying you the full range of choices which the market would otherwise offer.
Big Food, Big Med, Big Energy, Big Finance, which includes insurance, which when it was membership based and mutual, used to lower costs, not burnish the Greedville bottom line.
GREEDVILLE = Limit choices to you to optimize profits.
Sounds like conspiracy stuff, doesn't it? Nope, just the logical outcome of the original business plan for Greedville.
But even in Greedville, all is not sweetness and light. The size of the pie is shrinking even as those who want to feed are increasing in number. Realignments are in motion.
Today there are two main factions vying for power and a third.
Faction I is a group we generally know as the New World Order. This is a coalition built on the original business plan, endlessly repeated, originating with the Rothschild Banking. Over time, it came to include all of the corporations of Greedville identified by Eisenhower as the Military-Industrial Complex, many of them newcomers to Greedville, which is still, naturally, growing.
You might not know this – but the original target of the Rothschilds was not ordinary people but the royal houses of Europe, moving out first to drain these concentrations of wealth and power and then to grasp the entire world in a gauntlet of greed. Many of these lines were completely destroyed.
From the remnant of these royal houses, those who resisted, arose Faction II, a player fewer know exists.
It took them time to organize and begin to fight back. The world, as they knew it was gone, and they had much to learn.
By the late 1800s they began to secret their ancient wealth in vaults around the world. After the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 their concerns grew. By 1921 they had come together. The remaining royal houses from across the world came together. Riven by war and continuing attacks over the ensuing decades they dedicated their hidden wealth to rebuilding what had been lost.
The gleaming bars of gold, silver and jewels, a small amount of the wealth accumulated over generations, was dedicated to rebuilding the world. Over and over again they were betrayed by the same people who insinuated their way into trust positions. But a steady progress continued.
A while ago the last traitor had been excised from their ranks. But they were left drained and struggling.
Today a great battle is about to begin. You need to recognize the faces of the individuals who are, today, in command of Greedville. You need to see the face of the sole eminence whose word will launch the full force of Faction II. This will probably surprise you. It did me.
Today Faction I, Greedville, is commanded by three men, George H. W. Bush, whose long association with the CIA, along with his family background, gave him the power to kill with impunity. Tony Blair, whose antecedents are not as they seem, and Bill Clinton, who was brought up to fill the position he occupies today.
But this is an unstable coalition, and in this is their downfall written.
The forces within Greedville, insatiable for more, are turning on each other. Until recently those in control were working together. Last week George H. W. Bush had a meeting in the White House with President Obama. With him was his son, Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida. A deal was cut for a brokered GOP. Newt was always filler, his role to distract for a few weeks or months, with no potential to grab the golden ring of power.
Obama will walk away, wealthy beyond his wildest dreams. Bill and Hillary Clinton, representing the weaker component of Faction I, scripted to take a fall from a great height.
Greedville is a small in numbers, powerful in resources and ruthlessness.
And what of Faction II? What of Faction X, which has been silently in the game but invisible to most eyes?

Soon, Grasshopper, you will know.

 
All you need to know about the Newt
Newt Gingrich has lived a life of lies. He is personally irresponsible to the point one can reasonably wonder if he is a psychopath.

Time Line:
  • Married his geometry teacher, Jacqueline Battley, to escape his bipolar mother.
  • Demanded a divorce from Battley while she was recovering from cancer surgery. Battley had put Newt through college, paying all of their expenses. Jacqueline, according to Gail Sheehy. "The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich." Vanity Fair. 9/1995 supported and, “finished raising him,” Newt, she goes on to say, could not balance a check book.
  • According to Newt, published in the New York Times in an article by Katharine Q. Seelye,November, 24 1994. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals. " She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."
  • Newt also found it inconvenient to support his wife and children. Private people at the family church stepped in to ensure they survived.
  • Newt's Contract with (on) America catapults him to fame and wealth beyond any expectation along with the entire Congressional Class of '94.(The Contract was NOT Newt's idea, he stole it.)
  • Newt had already met and asked his next wife, Marianne Ginther, to marry him before asking his wife for a divorce. The Ginther marriage would break down when, as the world now knows, Newt demanded he be allowed to carry on a relationship with his present wife, Callista Bisek, who is 23 years younger than he. The two carried on a six year affair before he demanded an open marriage from Marianne and then pursued a divorce and an annulment after 18 years of marriage.
  • The time line on Newt's marriages is available on about.com

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester – Making Sense of the Totally Bizarre


In the past several weeks public interest has again been piqued regarding several items published on the web either by Alex, Duke of Manchester, his wife, Laura, and more mainstream journalists.. These varied offerings are fleshing out a picture of this unusual peer of the realm, adding to the barrage of articles published last summer around an unusual trial held in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division on July 19, 2011.
The trial took place due to a report by the Duke himself, admitting he was not divorced from his first wife at the time of his 1993 wedding to Wendy Buford, the mother of his children. Thus his children were illegitimate by law in England. The Chancery Court however found the children could continue to receive monies from the Manchester Trust, much to the Duke's displeasure. 

This callousness and lack of empathy shown by the Duke bears striking similarity to one characteristic of a sociopath. But there is more to come. 

An affidavit by second wife, Wendy Buford Montagu, given under penalty of perjury, revealed a time line suggesting motives, on the part of the Duke, which were simply appalling. The Duke seems to have believed he would benefit by $3,000 a month if the two children's support, which he refused to pay, and was being made up by the Manchester Trust, became unpayable by the Trust according to his former wife and the mother of the two children, Wendy Buford Montagu. 

Wendy also believes the Duke married her because he needed a regular source of support and planned all along to eventually leave her, alienating the children to his own advantage. This view is supported by psychological reports in the divorce court documents and also conforms to sociopathic behavior

The deluge of articles appearing in the wake of the July 2011 trial were typified by such language as this, appearing in the Telegraph by Philip Sherwell , "His scandal-ridden life has thus far seen him married three times, imprisoned twice in Australia, deported from Canada and exposed as a bigamist. But, even now, in his 50th year, the 13th Duke of Manchester shows no sign of tempering his famously erratic behaviour.”
 
In the wake of the trial the Duke's expressed concerns were to 'clear his name,' in regards the charges of bigamy, though an examination of the evidence leaves no doubt as to the sequent of events. Duke Alex blames everyone else, refusing to acknowledge or accept his own acts. He is glib, using his superficial charm to manipulate his listeners and readily changes his story, again the behavior of a sociopath. 

On January 8th this low in human decency was challenged by yet another appearance by Duke Alex, this time in a comment appearing on the Huffington Post website. The Duke intimated the Royal Family might be involved in the murder of a girl whose body was found on their Sandringham Estate while the Queen was staying there. 

An article, written by journalist Richard Kay, writing for the Mailonline.com, soon followed, appearing on January 16th. titled, Duke in sick attack on the Royal Family.”
 
Duke Alex's first comment, now removed from the site, is quoted below without correction was, This is not a Joke my name is Alexander Montagu the 13th Duke of Manchester I have been accused of bigimie and it is all a lie I have documented proof that my trust and lawyers and mother has set me up for something I have never done the Royal family has a lot of power and will do what ever they can to cover up any sort of embaraseme­nt even if the victim is 100% in the write and has the legeal documentat­ion to proove this you should look up the duchess of manchester under google and you will see the documentat­ion to see how the royal family will do what ever they can to cover any thing they can stop look investigat­e I can also let people know maybe people should look into the cameras around Sandringha­m around the Queens property.” It is all about him, no one else matters and he cannot even see how his inconsistency impacts those around him. Sociopathic. 

The case of murder has no apparent connection to the Royal family except for the disposal of the victim's body, according to authorities. Alex, who must embarrass any member of the aristocracy, was, as of last November, living in Las Vegas and receiving his mail at “8414 Farm Rd. # 180, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89131” He has been using “220 Newport Center Drive Suit (sic)# 11, Newport Beach, California 92660” for years – but, according to his own statements, is afraid to return to California because, “the police want to kill him.”

However, the ducal removal from California was arguably more likely related to the evasion of debt collectors than these more lurid causes. Based on information from several sources, the first of these being the former wife of Duke Alex, and the mother of his two children and his present, or nearly present, wife, Laura. 

It became known to Wendy in 2008 that Alex was buying cars with bad checks when a Detective Anderson from Redondo Beach contacted her in an attempt to locate one of these vehicles for repossession. At the time the newly estranged Duchess Laura was living with Wendy, having exhausted her other options for housing. Wendy assisted Detective Anderson in the repossession attempt. The vehicle in question was a red P. T. Cruiser. In late September of 2011 Laura, then reunited with the Duke for some time, told this reporter, “Alex always writes bad checks for cars.” The Duke lurches through life without any long range plan.
 
Laura lived with Wendy from mid-October 2008 until the end of the year when she returned to Alex because she was without funds to keep her cherished cell phone number, which she has had for twenty years, active. The number is 213-926-0952. While Laura was living with Wendy and the two children the youngest child moved in to her mother's room so Laura, their guest, could have her room. Wendy gave Laura regular cash so she would not be without funds. 

Wendy Buford married Alexander on 7th May 1993. The couple had met, according to an affidavit filed before the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division by Wendy Buford Montagu on 17th April 1992 while she, “attended a country music night club,” located in Orange County, California. According to the affidavit she was then, as now, employed at a law firm in the same county. 

The same affidavit states he asked her to marry him soon afterward, making claims of an income of around $150,000 a month. She was, she says, to find his claims were heavily larded with lies in the years to come, which statement is validated by court documents. 

After giving birth to their first child, a son named Alexander Michael Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu (Alexander),Wendy continued to work, bringing in their only regular income. Although the then Viscount claimed to always be on the brink of making money, usually by selling German Bonds left to him by his grandfather, these long and arduous negotiations always fell through. This writer has learned from dealers these bonds are deemed to be nearly impossible to cash. This source of income never materialized yet Duke Alex, still today, continues to scheme and depend on obtaining the money.
 
In 1999 a second child, a daughter named Ashley, was born to the couple. Wendy continued to work. Alex assumed the role of stay-at-home mother, according to Wendy, who has been employed continuously at the same firm since the time of the marriage. 

Duke Alex, according to Wendy, occasionally found a job but these were of short duration, generally ending in his being fired for a similar reason on each occasion. This was Alex's assumption he knew better how to run the company than did his employer, in this exhibiting a Grandiose Sense of Self.
 
Alex went upstairs to his room the moment I came in the door. I was responsible for shopping, cooking, cleaning, and other domestic needs,” Wendy said, when interviewed for this article.
Although he had assumed the role of care-taker Wendy also reports the Duke would take off at a moment's notice. Finding alternative care was then her responsibility. The Duke demonstrated the train of emotional shallowness and self-serving.
 
After the birth of a daughter and 13 years of marriage the two divorced, at which time Duke Alex demanded custody of the children and alimony, this affirmed by records from the Orange County Family Law Court. The divorce was long, drawn-out, and acrimonious by all reports. 

After many attempts to keep his financial affairs secret Duke Alexander was questioned on the stand from the records obtained through subpoena from his bank. The court took note of an amount amounting to around a million dollars then in his possession, this, according to Wendy Montagu, obtained from the sale of Manchester family heirlooms. 

The Duke asked for, and was denied, alimony and lost temporary custody. At a hearing in August of 2007 Duke Alex asked the issues to the divorce be bifurcated. This was granted, the remainder of the issues being finalized in 2008. But the judge cautioned him not to, “run out and get married again.” Less than a month after the divorce from Wendy was final, Duke Alexander married his present wife, Laura Ann Smith, and relocated, rarely seeing the children thereafter. He did, however, leave in his wake thousands in debts, which his former wife is now being forced to pay. 

According to documents from the court record and recent witnesses, the Duke's finances have been severely reduced since the end of his marriage to Wendy. From a capital base of around a million in 2007 the Duke, last summer and autumn, was reduced to asking for money to pay for ongoing projects from the people he had retained to work for him. Reluctant to assist, the people involved found themselves conned into helping, later realizing they had been skillfully manipulated. Money 'loaned' to the Duke they believed were used to pay for his gas, food and medicine, which includes psychotropic prescription drugs. 

These funds were transferred to him through services supplied by Walmart in Las Vegas, where he had noisily broken up with his wife, Duchess Laura, reporting her to police for stealing the only remaining copies videos he had taken of Michael Jackson while married to Wendy Buford Montagu, who also appears in the photos. As these were community property it is not clear Alex was in legal possession of these materials. They had been stolen from the family home at the time of the divorce. 

The same people found themselves paying for the Duke to file a divorce action against his wife. They then asked a contract be signed, something he had asked them to 'put off, as they could trust him.” When they pressed their request he blew up and began attacking them verbally and then threatening to kill them. These ended when these threats were reported to both their local police and to the FBI. 

The most perfunctory of glances at posts, emails, and letters written by Alex prove he can neither punctuate or spell. Comments from others note he also finds logical thinking somewhat challenging. 

Probably no one posting subsequent comments on the Huffington site believed Alex was, in fact, the Duke of Manchester. But Alex, no matter how unlikely, given his educational deficiencies, is without a doubt the present holder of the title and was raised with the full attention of his mother and grandfather. 

The education accorded to Duke Alex included highly respected and expensive schools on at least three continents.
While this lack of proficiency would be viewed as tragic, if exhibited by a person with a disadvantaged background, having it appear in  a peer of the realm is far more shocking and difficult to explain without further thought. 

A quick perusal of the Profile of a Sociopath reveal many of the characteristics associated with the condition as being present in the ducal behavior. 

If the Duke of Manchester is, indeed a sociopath his behavior is perfectly understandable.