The Secret Letter of Marilyn Monroe

I investigated some of this information for this book, and they never paid my last invoice. I spoke to the children of the families (Munger, Landau, Goodykoontz, and Patterson) and learned a lot. I gave some of this information to the owner of the pen set. I don't believe this to be true, and I told the people who hired me. 

They wanted me to find a typewriter that didn't exist. Marilyn had a 1934 Smith Corona Sterling and Royal Quiet De Luxe model typewriter. I even spoke to typewriter collector Steve Soboroff who purchased the typewriters.

None of the neighbors had a typewriter, and none ever lent a typewriter to Marilyn. The people who hired me provided me with the signature at the end of the letter they claimed they found, and it is not Marilyn's signature, and Marilyn didn't type M.M at the end of her letters. If you ask me, they copied the signature of the bottom letter and copied it to the top letter. I took this signature from a letter Marilyn wrote. Notice the 'L' is thinner than her other letter. The 'M' is shorter, unable to see it, more squeezed together, and I have yet to see her signature 'n' look like a small half of an 'e'. You decide for yourself.

Republican John Cox

john cox

Rich Pedroncelli/AP/Shutterstock John Cox
A California gubernatorial debate was briefly interrupted on Tuesday when one of the candidates — while introducing himself to the audience — was served with legal papers by a private investigator.

Republican John Cox is among the 46 candidates running to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in a September recall election. Cox was one of three of those politicians to take part in a debate held Tuesday night at Sacramento's Guild Theater.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the debate briefly devolved into spectacle when the private investigator advanced toward the stage, yelled, "John Cox, you've been served," and threw court documents onto the stage before being asked to leave.
Video shared to social media shows that Cox continued with his opening remarks as the investigator 

Rich Pedroncelli/AP/Shutterstock John Cox
A California gubernatorial debate was briefly interrupted on Tuesday when one of the candidates — while introducing himself to the audience — was served with legal papers by a private investigator.

Republican John Cox is among the 46 candidates running to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in a September recall election. Cox was one of three of those politicians to take part in a debate held Tuesday night at Sacramento's Guild Theater.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the debate briefly devolved into spectacle when the private investigator advanced toward the stage, yelled, "John Cox, you've been served," and threw court documents onto the stage before being asked to leave.
Video shared to social media shows that Cox continued with his opening remarks as the investigator was led away.

According to The Sacramento Bee, the papers delivered to Cox allege that he owes thousands of dollars, plus interest, to a a Virginia-based consulting firm that worked on his 2018 campaign for California governor.

Cox, a millionaire businessman, lost that race (also against Newsom) by what the Times previously described as a "historic margin." The Bee further reported that Cox referred to Tuesday's incident as "garbage," saying: "It's one creditor who didn't get paid from the 2018 campaign because he didn't deserve to be."

    The investigator who served Cox, Aman Choudhry, told the paper that Cox has been "ordered to             

    appear in San Diego Superior Court regarding this case. He's been ducking and dodging courts and         

    not showing up. He thinks he's above the law."

    The Cox campaign did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment.

THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO STALK AND THE WORKPLACE

“Mary” met Kenneth Kuban, an employee of the Library of Congress, on a dating website in 2010. Mary ended in the relationship in April 2011, but received numerous daily phone calls and emails from Kuban for four months, asking her to reconsider. Mary obtained a restraining order in July 2011. According to an indictment, Kuban then impersonated Mary and posted ads on Craigslist soliciting sexual encounters. As a result, for over three months strangers from all over the country came to Mary’s home seeking sex.

Mary reported Kuban’s actions to his employer, the Library of Congress. Pursuant to an investigation, federal agencies and law enforcement determined that Kuban was posting the online sex ads during work time from an IP address at the Library of Congress, and that his email was used to post the ads on Craigslist. Kuban was arrested and charged with stalking, identification fraud and other crimes.2

This incident illustrates behavior that is disturbing and criminal – but sadly, not unusual. It occurs much more frequently than reports and statistics indicate, and it happens quite often in the workplace. Today many people spend a substantial amount of time at work, and use work- provided computers, smartphones and internet access to conduct personal matters. When employees engage in harassing or threatening behavior or stalking on work time with work resources, it becomes an employer’s business.

What is Stalking and How Does Technology Play a Role?

Stalking is generally a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. Stalking behavior includes, but is not limited to: following or spying on a person, waiting at places in order to make unwanted contact with the victim or to monitor the victim, leaving unwanted items and gifts for the victim, and posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth. Stalking is strongly correlated to sexual assault and domestic violence. Approximately 1 in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the United States have been victims of stalking.3 Nearly three out of four stalking victims knew his or her offender in some capacity and 21.5% of stalking victims identified their stalker as a former intimate.4

Over the last 15 years, the incidence of stalking through the use of technology (or “cyberstalking” as it is commonly known) has sharply increased. The term refers to the use of the internet, email, or other telecommunication/electronic technologies to harass or stalk another

1 Special thanks to staff at the Stalking Resource Center, a partner in the project Workplaces Respond to Domestic and Sexual Violence: A National Resource Center, for their assistance with this article.

2 Justin Jouvenal, “Stalkers Use Online Sex Ads as Weapon,” The Washington Post, July 14, 2013.
3 Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The National Intimate Partner and

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report (2011).

4 U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Study (2005); Katrina Baum, Stalking Victimization in the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009).

 

1

person.5 Perpetrators can use technology by itself to stalk a victim, or in conjunction with an ongoing pattern of conventional stalking. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice found that the top two forms of stalking behaviors experienced by victims were unwanted phone calls and messages (66.7% of victims surveyed) and unwanted letters and email (30.7% of victims surveyed).6 Other examples of technology used to stalk include:

• Email spoofing, whereby the perpetrator sends emails pretending to be the victim

• Text messaging and sexting (sending sexually explicit text messages and/or photos)

• Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.); creating social media accounts to harass, threaten and/or denigrate the victim7; impersonating the victim on social media

• Online impersonation of the victim through a false identity or account to place online sex ads or solicit sex

• Use of GPS to track the victim, including placing a GPS device on the victim’s car. Legal Context

  Stalking is a crime under federal law8 and the laws of 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and many Indian Tribes. In addition to stalking, every jurisdiction in the U.S. has laws addressing electronic harassment, and federal law also criminalizes the use of technology to stalk.9 Legal definitions of stalking and harassment vary from one jurisdiction to another, especially with regard to the perpetrator’s intent, the victim’s fear or emotional distress, and the level of fear experienced by the victim.10

  In recent years a handful of states also have passed laws criminalizing impersonation of individuals on the internet, including New York, California and Texas. In New York and California, online impersonation is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and up to a year in prison. In Texas, the crime is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.11

  5 See Trudy M. Gregorie, “Cyberstalking: Dangers on the Information Highway.” National Center for Victims of Crime (2001).

  6 Shannan Catalano, Special Report: Stalking Victims in the United States – Revised, at 4. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (September 2012).

  7 For example, a person created multiple Twitter accounts to harass a Philadelphia talk radio host for an on-air remark. “Fox 29 Explores Cyberstalking,” July 24, 2013, available at http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/22926663/fox-29-explores-cyber-stalking.

  8 Interstate stalking, which is frequently an aspect of domestic or intimate partner violence, is a federal crime. See 18 U.S.C. §2261A.

  9 18 U.S.C. §2261A criminalizes using “any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce” that places a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury or substantial emotional distress.

  10 To learn how each state’s law defines stalking, see the website of our project partner, the Stalking Resource Center, http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws.

  11 See Cal. Pen. Code § 528.5; N.Y. Pen. Law §190.25; Tex. Pen. Code § 33.07. 2

  

Despite these new laws, specialists and victim service providers observe that technology is rapidly outpacing the boundaries of the law and surpassing law enforcement’s ability to identify, investigate and prosecute technology-enabled stalking.12

What Can Employers Do to Address the Workplace Implications?

Technology-enabled stalking and harassment become workplace issues in two major ways: when an employee is the victim of such acts, and when an employee is the perpetrator. Because the harassment and/or or stalking occurs while the victim- or perpetrator-employee is at work, and may involve the use of work resources -- an employer-provided computer, smartphone, telephone, and internet access -- it becomes the employer’s concern; employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace and to address an employee’s potentially criminal behavior.

The best approach is for employers to get ahead of the issue, and not wait to react to a particular incident. Employers should strive to create a healthy and safe work environment free of harassment and stalking, by instituting both preventative and remedial measures. Employers should make clear that harassing, threatening or stalking behavior is not acceptable inside or outside of the workplace, and will be addressed. If an employee complains of harassment or stalking via technology while at work, an employer should not dismiss their concerns or simply refer them to EAP. Similarly, if someone reports an employee for harassing or stalking them using technology, the best practice is for employers to take the complaint seriously and initiate an investigation. The actions of the Library of Congress employee, Kenneth Kuban, demonstrate how employees can use work time and technology to perpetrate stalking and harassment that is not immediately obvious. Employers should document all reported instances of harassment by the employee-perpetrator and seek the assistance of law enforcement (after consulting the victim).

Another important piece of a healthy and safe work environment is to address the use of workplace technology. The best and most comprehensive way to address this is through a technology policy. Employers should clearly set forth the organization’s appropriate and acceptable uses for the employer-provided telephone, smartphone, computer, and internet access. Employers also should take steps to prevent employee identity theft through the use of technology, especially through work-provided devices. Issues to consider and address include:

• Are all work-provided devices and accounts password-protected?

• Is personal employee or client information that is stored in company databases or on

  servers electronically encrypted?

• Can employees use work resources to access non-work related content during work hours, or during personal time?

• Are employees allowed to access personal email or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) from work devices?

  12 See Stalking Resource Center, “Stalking Technology Outpaces State Laws,” available at http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/stalking-technology-outpaces-state-laws17A308005D0C.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

 

3

• Does the employer monitor, prevent access to or block objectionable content and/or websites?

The policy should clearly set forth the procedure to be followed if an employee violates the policy, uses work-provided technology to harass, threaten or stalk, and the potential consequences.

Addressing workplace safety is a vital part of a comprehensive workplace violence program. For more information, see the Workplaces Respond website and the Stalking Resource Center’s website.

Maya Raghu is a senior attorney at Futures Without Violence, a non-profit organization and lead partner in Workplaces Respond to Domestic and Sexual Violence: A National Resource Center .

   

4

Duane Lee "Dog" Chapman

And this man still has a show? What a bunch of crap!

Chapman gained negative public attention after a private phone conversation between him and his son, Tucker, was leaked to the media. The conversation was about the relationship his son was having with a black woman. During the recording, Chapman can be heard saying "I don't care if she's a Mexican, a whore or whatever. It's not because she's black, it's because we use the word nigger sometimes here. I'm not gonna take a chance ever in life of losing everything I've worked for 30 years because some fucking nigger heard us say nigger and turned us into the Enquirer magazine. Our career is over! I'm not taking that chance at all! Never in life! Never! Never! If Lyssa [Dog's daughter] was dating a nigger, we would all say 'fuck you!' And you know that. If Lyssa brought a black guy home ya da da... it's not that they're black, it's none of that. It's that we use the word nigger. We don't mean you fucking scum nigger without a soul. We don't mean that shit. But America would think we mean that. And we're not taking a chance on losing everything we got over a racial slur because our son goes with a girl like that.

Duane Lee "Dog" Chapman

Jonathan 'Jack' Stuef - Update

     So, Jonathan Kenneth Stuef, born in 1988 is not married, and he currently lives in an apartment on Calle Marseilles,  San Juan Puerto Rico. He moved there in 2019, way before he allegedly found the treasure. I'm surprised he lives in an apartment since he apparently is wealthy now. Prior to moving to Puerto Rico, he lived in Philadelphia in 2013 and then Fenton Michigan (which is where his family lives) in 2014. I would think he would be a doctor by now since he said he went to medical school, but there are no medical licenses associated with him. 

    There are no records stating he was a medical student, there are no records indicating he worked for Georgeton Heckler or the Onion. Who on earth would give up medical school and writing to look for a treasure that no one has found in over 10 years? 

This box doesn't look like any box that would have been buried for 10 years. It actually looks brand new. It's sad how so many people believed in this crap!  It is interesting that the so-called treasure was found in June 2020 and Fenn died three months later. 

RIP: From Wikipedia

Five people died while searching for the treasure. This led the chief of the New Mexico State Police, Pete Kassetas, to publicly implore Fenn to end the treasure hunt, stating "He's putting lives at risk."

Randy Bilyeu went missing in January 2016 and was found dead in July. His body was discovered by workers along the Rio Grande, and an autopsy could not determine the cause of death. Bilyeu's ex-wife publicly stated her belief that the Fenn Treasure was a hoax.

Jeff Murphy (age 53) of Batavia, Illinois, was found dead in Yellowstone National Park on June 9, 2017, after falling about 500 feet (150 m) down a steep slope. Yellowstone officials did not provide details to the public concerning their investigation, but KULR-TV filed a Freedom of Information Act request. The television station reports that Murphy's wife told park authorities that he was looking for the treasure when she first reported him missing.

Pastor Paris Wallace of Grand Junction, Colorado, told family members that he was searching for a buried treasure, but he failed to show up for a planned family meeting on June 14, 2017. His car was found parked near the Taos Junction Bridge and his body was found 5 to 7 miles (8.0 to 11.3 km) downstream along the Rio Grande.

Eric Ashby (age 31) was found dead in Colorado's Arkansas River on July 28, 2017. Friends and family stated that he had moved to Colorado in 2016 to look for the treasure, and was last seen on June 28 rafting on the river 10 to 15 miles (16 to 24 km) upstream from where his body was found. The raft overturned and Ashby had been missing since that time.

Michael Wayne Sexson (age 53) of Deer Trail, Colorado, was found dead by rescuers on March 21, 2020, alongside his unnamed 65-year-old male companion, who later recovered in hospital (later named as Steven Inlow).  Authorities were notified by the person who rented a pair of snowmobiles to the men. The pair were discovered within 5 miles (8.0 km) of a site they had been rescued from a month earlier, near the Dinosaur National Monument along the Utah-Colorado border.