mardi 1 janvier 2008

Daniel Jones: many-sided man of mystery...or Le Médecin Imaginaire: Keeping up with the Joneses....

NOTE: This was written in January 2008. The information contained it was accurate at the time. The picture of the cheesily grinning sawbones in the labcoat was taken from Dr Jones’s then current ProZ.com page. He has since removed it. He has also changed his claimed PhD from Paris III to a DEA, but retains the claim to have an unspecified PhD in translation. This blog will be updated when I get time.

I should add that Daniel Alun Jones is not to be confused with David Alun Jones, a legitimate translator in Edinburgh.


If Harold W. Vadney III is the most pernicious and unmitigatedly evil fraud I have encountered in the translation business, Dr Daniel Jones is perhaps the weirdest.

Dr Daniel Jones the wannabe translator



I first encountered the self-styled doctor on the ProZ.com terminology forum, KudoZ. Someone had asked about the French word potasse. This is a rather unscientific and ambiguous word, but it just so happens that the English word “potash” is ambiguous in the same way; so there is no reason to look any further.

But our friend Jones, never shy of displaying his ignorance, suggested “potassium permanganate”. This is, of course, completely stupid. Not only is potassium permanganate not called potasse in French, but even if it were, there is nothing to suggest that it was this particular potassium compound that the original author intended. There is no justification, even if his suggestion were plausible, for putting such a huge gloss when an exact translation is available. By way of justifying his monstrous suggestion, Dr Jones pasted in, without acknowledging the source, a passage from the CNRS about the use of pot. permanganate, in place of chlorine, to kill bugs in drinking water. This was totally irrelevant, as the passage from which the question came was about cleaning the filter column.

Two people disagreed with Dr Jones’s answer. The first was a (genuine) PhD chemist from Cambridge. She got addressed as “dear” and told “we’re not in elementary school”. I was the second, and his response to me included the words “you've understood nothing of the CNRS reference: do you understand any French ?”. (Note in passing the use of French punctuation: this from someone who claims English as a native language!) Of course I was indignant, and wanted to check out who this alleged “doctor” was whose stupidity was matched only by his impudence.

Looking at his profile, I soon realized that I was dealing with a major imposter. He claimed at the time to be a “Docteur en médecine et PhD en linguistique de l'Université de Paris III Sorbonne”. The latter claim was easily checked; the library in Paris III has no doctoral dissertation by a Daniel Jones. (Of course, there is no end of books by the well-known phonetician Daniel Jones, but he died in 1967.) So obviously, he lied about the PhD. He gives an address in Le Pré Saint Gervais, which I will call Address A.

If Jones’s answers on the terminology forum KudoZ put him in a bad light, his questions do nothing to redeem him. He once asked, for example, about the English expression “CI”, in the following context:

The 95% CI was based on the normal approximation of difference in proportions and a two–sided test with p<0.05 was taken as significant.

Anyone with any basic training in any scientific discipline, even a soft option like medicine, would be familiar with the term “confidence interval”, and recognize it immediately in the context, with related terms like “normal approximation”, “two-sided test” “p<0.05” and “significant”. The same goes for anyone with even a modicum of training and/or experience in technical or scientific translation. Hell, I was taught that stuff in high school! Having recognised CI as “confidence interval” (and I think anyone with a scientific background would pick it even given a blank space rather than the abbreviation), even if you don’t know the French term, you couldn’t help but pick intervalle de confiance as a first guess, and Google would do the rest.

 Prof. Daniel Jones the English teacher



This is where it gets interesting. I communicated with a colleague, who actually is a physician with a PhD, and she sent me some links she had found. One was to an English teacher called Daniel Jones, who shares not only a name but also a mobile phone number with Dr Jones the translator. This Daniel Jones is said to have been born on 30 October 1968 and to have an address in Paris 14. (Call it Address B.) One assumes that, sharing the same mobile phone, the two Joneses we have met so far must be the same fellow. Dr Jones the translator says his office is in Paris; so there is no need to be too alarmed about the two addresses.

There is, however, the slight problem of Dr Jones’s age. He looks a bit older than 39 in the picture on his ProZ.com profile. However, not only does his profile at formaguide.com give the date of birth in 1968, but there is another profile for an English teacher called Daniel Jones at kelprof.com that gives his age as 39. The formaguide.com profile also lists his “Nombre année [sic] d’expérience” as 20, and his “Nombre de jours d'animation par an d'expérience” as 200 (it said the same thing in 2006). That’s well and truly full-time for a teacher. So he’s been teaching full-time since 1986, when he was 18, and still found time to put in 9 years of full-time study for his doctorat en médecine and nominally 8 more years for his “PhD” in linguistics or, as it now appears, “LEA option Traduction”. There could be very little cross-crediting between the two domains, but let’s be generous and allow two years. So that’s 20 years of full-time teaching, 9 years studying medicine and say 6 years studying translation or linguistics (which have about as much connection as hydrodynamics and plumbing, but let that pass). So he must have started one of these activities by the age of 4. Quel prodige !!

[PS Since writing the paragraph above, I have heard from a colleague (the same one I mentioned above) that Jones claims to studied medicine in the US. So that puts an entirely different complexion on things! The US MD degree is a four-year postgraduate course. So, allowing 8 years for his “PhD”, 4 years for his US MD, and 20 years’ claimed full-time teaching experience, that makes 32 years out of the 39 he has graced this planet with his presence. So he must have started his academic-cum-professional career at the age of 7. Now that’s much more plausible...isn’t it?]

Oh, and yes, our friend does actually refer to himself (in the third person) as le professeur JONES. For those who don’t know French (or who aren’t familiar with the finer details), I add that, while professeur on its own just means “teacher”, prefixed to a person’s name like that, if refers to a university professor (in the US context, a “full” professor).

 Dr Daniel Jones the Psychotherapist



However, as if that weren’t enough, there is third Daniel Jones, Daniel Jones the psychotherapist. This Daniel Jones also shares a mobile phone number with Dr Jones the translator (not the same as the teacher’s phone number—the translator apparently carries two mobiles in his lab-coat), and also shares his claim to a medical degree. Not only that, he gives the same address (Address A) in Le Pré Saint Gervais as our friend the translator.

Confused? I am! Anyway, don’t relax just yet, because there is another side to this mystery: the Société Internationale de Psychanalyse. This has as its president one Daniel Alun Jones, and the same address (Address B) as Daniel Jones the English teacher! According to the associations-medicales.com entry for it, it was founded in 1984. This is bizarre. I am still trying to work out whether the SIP is genuine or not. However, most Google hits to Société Internationale de Psychanalyse relate to a body founded by Freud in 1910 or so. The Société Psychanalytique de Paris is often listed as its French branch, although the SPP itself claims affiliation to the Association Psychanalytique Internationale. I suspect this may just be a case of official and unofficial French translations of the (presumably German) original name.

More bizarrely, there is a book advertised for sale on Amazon (single copy, second-hand), by a Daniel Alun Jones, called Psychopathology and Creativity; A Study of Anthony Storr's “The Dynamics of Creation”, apparently published, ring-bound, by the “University [sic] De La Sorbonne Nouvelle (1987)”. Is this our same Dr Jones the two-bit translator and language teacher? He would have been 19 when the book came out, but, given his other precocious achievements, this would hardly be surprising. I wonder, however, why I can find no other reference to this book or to its author as a psychoanalyst, other than as noted above (i.e. dodgy and apparently connected with our friend the charlatan translator). I wonder, too, why the book does not appear to have an ISBN, and why, if it was published by Paris III (where our friend got his imaginary doctorate), it’s not even in their library catalogue....

Daniel Jones the conference interpreter



Another gem of a discovery from my colleague the real physician-PhD is that, in his entry in the database of the SFT (Société Française des Traducteurs), Jones (assuming it’s the same one, as the phone number would suggest) describes himself as a conference interpreter, with the language combination English-English. This must be one of the easier combinations, even for a conference interpreter. I suppose everybody has to be good for something.

 Prof. Dr Daniel Jones the fraud?



So there you have it. Jones the translator, Jones the English teacher, Jones the shrink, Jones the monolingual conference interpreter. All, despite the many hairstyles, apparently the same person, who must have lived a very busy life to accomplish so much in under 40 years.

Either that or he’s just another fraud.

9 commentaires:

trinidad a dit…

Why doesn't the director of Fantasy Island give his own details; contact details, telephone, address; the split/multiple/pseudo personality Jones does, why does the author (who's obviously on a revenge trip) not give his/hers ? Not really credible I'm afraid and likely to lead to a court case with a big fine as dessert.

Cowardice+Revenge=Bad mixture

Richard D. Benham a dit…

First of all, this blog entry was not meant to be public. Unfortunately, the "preview" function produces a preview which is not at all like the final blog entry in terms of layout, and so I published the thing to see what it looks like.

You can find more about me on my ProZ.com profile. My current phone number is +41764552561. I am in a hotel and looking for more permanent accommodation.

My particulars are not relevant: if "Dr" Jones wants to sue me, he will lose, as all my claims are well-documented.

Revenge is not a major motivation. I am working on about half a dozen exposés.

Anyway, Trinidad, you are in no position to talk: you hide behind a pseodonym, and appear to be unaware of the difference between civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, you are obviously a stupid and objectionable little squirt; so bugger off.

I actually came to here to hide this entry, as I have found there is another, legitimate translator of a similar name in Edinburgh.

trinidad a dit…
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
trinidad a dit…

Requiem for an Internet Troll, His Pet Sockpuppet and their Stooges
Dear Readers:

Back in December, I created this blog to expose a reprehensible species of Internet criminals who set themselves up to be judges, jury, and executioners by scurrilously attacking innocent persons whom the scoundrels had never met, worked for, nor even contacted prior to their excursions into the abyss of depraved rantings.

I was one of their victims but I didn't lie down and play dead as did most of the others. When Richard Davey Benham and Scott Horne and their minions picked on me they obviously had no clue what they were getting involved in. They now know and they regret it. Believe me.

After many weeks of following their trails and demanding investigations, we can close this chapter of criminal behavior and can now start processing the criminal and civil claims against Benham and Horne and one or two others who lent their support to thier reprehensible malconduct.

Thanks to the cooperation of ethically and professionally run operations and to the support of persons who will not tolerate Internet abuse and defamation, Benham and Horne and their stooges have been exposed for what they are: liars and frauds.

The postings on this blog have been factual, honest, hopefully entertaining and informative, and intended to combat a very real and very damaging Internet phenomenon, trolls and sockpuppets, and the abuse they craft. We hope it's a start and a contribution to the other courageous persons who have stepped forward to fight Internet abuse and to dispatch those who misuse the Internet for their own perverse purposes.

There is a special place for the Richard Benhams and Scott Hornes of the world and for their collaborators and now that I have succeeded in proving them to be liars and frauds, I'm going to put the mater to rest and pronounce requiesquat in pace over this issue now that they have been exposed.

To my readers: Thank you! for following the evolution of the demise of two scoundrels and thank you for your interest. But whatever you do, don't forget the problem and do what you can to fight back!

To the Internet scoundrels still out there all I have to say is: Watch out!
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 10:59
0 comments
Labels: Defamation, Fraud, Internet Abuse, Joan Ross, P. Scott Horne, Richard Benham, Scott Waldman
Another Benham Fraud ...
After many weeks, Credentials Inc., the parent company of DegreeChk, Richard Benham's so-called source of his defamatory postings, has responded with a report on the results of their investigation relating to Benham's inquiries, apparent fraudulent representations and abuse of the information obtained.

Mr T. McKechney, CEO of Credentials Inc., in a letter dated April 11, 2008, wrote the following:


"We received your complaint on December 26th, 2007 that an individual had obtained information relating to your academic record at the University at Albany, State University of New York (hereinafter know [sic] as SUNY Albany), and subsequently published the information on an internet blog site. Our investigation found that on July 30, 2007 an individual identified as Richard Davey Benham registered with our service and immediately performed a verification on Harold W. Vadney from SUNY Albany. The results of the verification were emailed to Benham at 'me@rbenham.com’. As you noted in your email to our Mr. Terry Reed, our report represented your BA degree erroneously as a BS. You also indicated at the time that your graduate studies were not reflected in the report. (I will explain the nature of
these reporting differences in a later paragraph.)


*****


"Pursuant to the terms set forth in the agreement, we attempted to reach Mr. Benham in order to obtain “proof of such written consent”.

"Initially, we attempted to reach Mr. Benham using the email address he provided as part of his registration. We received no response to repeated attempts. We attempted to reach him by telephone, again, without success. Finally, we sent a hard copy letter via Federal Express to the Indonesian address Benham provided in his DegreeChk registration. We were informed by Federal Express that no such address exists.

"It is our conclusion, therefore, that Richard Davey Benham misrepresented to us
that he possessed an appropriate authorization to perform this verification. We further conclude, by virtue of the fact that he provided false contact information, that the individual known to us as Richard Davey Benham did not use the information he obtained for any legitimate business purpose. In effect, we conclude that Mr. Benham knowingly violated the terms of our Service Agreement.
"We have disabled Benham’s User ID with our service and referred this matter to our legal counsel for disposition. We have been advised, however, that obtaining any relief in this matter may be impossible as we have no idea where Mr. Benham is at the present time, nor do we have any means of contacting him.

*****

" Mr. Vadney, I find this whole situation very unfortunate. We are very proud of the service we provide. We have made the whole process of verifying academic credentials more accurate and efficient, thus benefitting universities, employers and even job candidates. In our 10 years of operation, I can never recall another situation where the process has been abused as it was in this case. To say the least, we are outraged at this course of events. For you, Mr. Vadney, we are sorry that you are caught up in this business and we hope that you find a way to reconcile matters with Mr. Benham."

Need I say more?

Except for just a couple of loose ends, this just about wraps up the outstanding investigations and we can now proceed against the various malfeasors involved in this reprehensible business.

In summary:

Richard Benham and Scott Horne posted a scandalous and defamatory site called the Independent Linguists Discussion forum that was deleted by Bravenet.com and Benham and Horne banned from using that provider/host;
Richard Benham abused Bravenet's copyrights and was forced to remove material from his reposted forum page to ensure that no reference to Bravenet appeared;
Richard Benham and Scott Horne posted scandalous and defamatory postings on TranslatorsCafe with links to their bogus discussion forum; the thread was frozen and all references to Benham's and Horne's so-called forum were removed;
Richard Benham and Scott Horne duped a local backwoods reporter, Mr Scott Waldman, who reports on the "hill towns" for the Times Union, a newspaper of the Hearst Corporation, into printing their lies (article appearing in the August 22, 2007, Times Union);
Harold Vadney subsequently produced his Institute of Linguists diploma--disproving Benham's and Horne's claims--and forwarded a copy to the now Chartered Institute of Linguists' officer corresponding with Benham and Horne but who inexplicably (or explicably) disappeared or is no longer with the Institute'' and the Institute has been reticent on the subject ever since;
Harold Vadney produced his RSA certificate of election to fellowship--again disproving Benham's and Horne's claims;
Benham and Horne were rebuffed by other, more ethical publishers, who were then abused by Benahm and Horne;
Upon investigation, Yahoo!Groups found that Richard Benham forged his Yahoo! e-mail address;
Upon investigation, the United States Army confirmed Harold Vadney's military decorations and honorable discharge, proving that Benham and Horne's statements and Scott Waldman's article were false in reporting that any of Harold Vadney's military awards was revoked;
Scott Horne was banned from TranslatorsCafe for his malconduct there (unrelated to his other malconduct as reported on this blog);
Scott Horne's profile has disappeared from ProZ;
Scott Horne appears to have been involved with a defendant in a defamation lawsuit in New York Supreme Court and that involvement will result in civil charges against both Horne (who for some undisclosed reason has fled to Canada, given up his US citizenship and has applied for Canadian citizenship);
Credentials, Inc., the parent company of DegreeChk, has confirmed its findings (vide supra) that Richard Benham fraudulently obtained information from their service and abused their terms of service.
Wherever Benham and Horne were shown to be frauds, their only recourse was to either discredit the organization exposing them or fabricated yet another lie replete with wanton speculations;
Etc., etc., etc.
It appears nothing at all in any of Benham's and Horne's ravings or in the Waldman article of August 22, 2007 (which was based on information provided by Richard Benham and Scott Horne) was true and Benham's and Horne's unfounded attacks on local publishers who refused to publish their smut were unfounded, and reports allegedly made by Ms Jane Lamb-Ruiz were all bogus and based on fraudulent information. Ms Lamb-Ruiz's hystrionics and her reliance on two scoundrels for her information is the epitome of recklessness.

Criminal and civil charges are forthcoming against those conveniently within the reach of the United States law enforcement and justice system.

Anyone consulting these pages should be as outraged as Mr McKechney and others, including myself, the victim of this outrageous misconduct and abuse, are and should ostracize the Internet troll, his sockpuppet and their stooges accordingly.

It appears that Benham and Horne wrongfully hurt a number of people and made absolute fools of a far greater number who may have swallowed their lies.
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 10:00
0 comments
Labels: Abuse, Fraud, Jane Lamb-Ruiz, Joan Ross, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Reason Comments are Moderated
You don't really have to wonder that species like Richard Benham and Scott Horne get to publish their ridiculous babblings and why sites and blogs really cannot be left to the good sense, decency and intellect of visitors.

Just have a look at the 4-word, almost English comment left by one of our remarkably gifted retarded visitors below in the previous posting.

Makes a cretin cockroach look brilliant!
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 17:32
0 comments
Labels: Defamation, Internet Abuse, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Can of worms? Benham and Horne got problems...
What have you done Mr Benham? Mr Horne?
Looks like you've opened a can of worms! What are you going to do now?

With their last ridiculous antics our Internet troll Richard Benham and his sockpuppet Scott Horne appear to have opened a can of worms by first prematurely publishing their libels, then idiotically requesting the official custodian of military records for information on Harold Vadney's military record, receiving the official information, then actually publishing the information on their so-called blog, and then, finding that their gooses are cooked like the craven cretins that they are, they totally misinterpret what they received. They can't even read!
Get this: Benham has already admitted in one of his recent Benham-Horne dialogues, yes admitted, that he's "a bit dyslexic". A dyslexic wannabe translator. Now that takes the booby prize! What cookoo's nest did these two lunatics fall out of anyway?

But now they're really squirming and are tripping over themselves trying to talk themselves out of the pickle they've gotten themselves into ... and gotten "brilliant" Times Union journalist Scott Waldman into a bit of that same pickle.

But there is still a humorous side to all of this when you read that they allege one can enlist in the military for a particular posting. These two pinko girlscouts, Benham and Horne, are so incredibly naïve--but what do you expect from their kind. Anyone enlisting and in a position to tell the military where to post them would certainly choose someplace like San Diego, Honalulu, the Mediterranean. Sorry Mr Benham, Mr Horne; while you were out selling girlscout cookies, the military was sending men where the military wanted them or needed them. Duh!

Just visualizing the troll and the sockpuppet doing a frantic jig, clicking away at their keyboards, cutting and pasting, conferring with their New Baltimore contacts...what an infernal BUZZ that must be! Joan Ross must be fuming not to be able to take credit for her own "vitriolic character assassinations" (just quoting her).

Please forgive me if I make the impression that I'm gloating but I am seriously enjoying this moment; I've waited so long for it and worked so hard at mining the truth and now I almost feel sorry for the pitiful duo, Benham and Horne. Should I feel guilty about causing two middle-aged caricatures such pain, two wannabes who already have the "troll personality disorder" and are so angry, so deprived and who have no self-respect nor do they enjoy any self-esteem? NOT!

Mr Benham and Mr Horne, together with their hacks and stooges have brought it upon themselves because they are summarily vile and dishonest.



Is this Internet troll Benham or sockpuppet Horne at the keyboard?
We can't tell which end is doing the talking or typing!
(Photo credit: Stock Photography & Royalty Free Stock Photos at http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/earthworm.html)
More on Benham and Horne at http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 14:13
0 comments
Labels: Coward, Joan Ross, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman, Sockpuppet, Troll
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Grasping at straws, gasping! Internet Terrorism à la Troll and Sockpuppet!


Benham or Horne looking for something to post on their blogs.


(Copyright © 2003 Top20Fun.com at http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1359.html)






Internet troll Richard Benham and sockpuppet Scott Horne, our illustrative examples of craven Internet abusers and defamers, are scraping the bottom of their chamber pots for anything, absolutely anything to save their bloated butts. So far they've tried--pitifully unsuccessfully--to bully their victims into silence; they then concocted every genre of specious and scurrilous accusation and fraud imaginable only to be caught red-handed and subjected to investigation and censure (soon prosecution); they then attempted venomous ad hominem attacks on their courageous challenger and were promptly slapped down for what they are, cowardly rodents; they then attacked persons close to their valiant victim and were ignored (the worst thing one can do to an Internet troll or sockpuppet like Benham or Horne, respectively).

Richard Benham and Scott Horne have properly and lawfully been exposed for what they are. They are factually and objectively absolutely worse than anything they have claimed their vicitims to be. Even if one were to believe the egregious lies and speculations that Benham and Horne have so cravenly posted on their silly dialogue with each other that's masquerading as a blog. (If anyone has actually read Benham's and Horne's blog PLEASE post your comments here!)

Benahm and Horne, despite numerous demands, warnings and notices continue their Internet abuse and defamations with impunity--despite the fact that they are making such pitiful fools of themselves and entrenching themselves only more deeply in their depravity. One wonders, what do these two lunatics think they have to gain with such idiotic exhibitionism? Such a lack of intellectual input; such puerile, preadolescent babbling; such uninteresting, transparent drivel. Such abject anger! One shudders to think what sort of dark disappointment, such deep pain they are feeling to have to lash out as they do. Benham's self-righteous puffery and bantering about his linguistic skills (Yeah! those 4 years of experience. Duh! You go girl!) and he doesn't even have an address, a domicile! Then there's Horne's loss of a homeland and pitiful attempts to immerse himself and assimilate into the depressed segregation of Québec, an expatriate American turned wannabe Québecois. Now what does that tell you? Two losers trying to pull down real champions. Simply pitiful!




Horne and Benham are such losers that they don't even publish anything about themselves...is that to prevent anyone from perhaps finding out a bit more about these two imbecilic itenerate indigent Internet terrorists?


Wannabe Canadian Horne has been reported to have fed false information to the media and has recently requested and received information confirming everything that Harold Vadney has said from the start. What is the sockpuppet Horne going to do now that he sees he has absolute proof that he lied--poetic justice: Horne requested the information showing him to be a craven liar! We are musing what Mr Scott Waldman, wannabe reporter for the Albany Times Union newspaper, a Hearst Corporation publication, will have to say when Benham and Horne have to recant their accusations? Any suggestions Sir Troll, Master Sockpuppet?

Horne filed his application for Canadian citizenship in about February 2007; we will be contacting the Canadian immigration authorities shortly with a complaint and an inquiry asking if that's the best that Canada can do as far as attracting immigrants. Have you received a response from the Canadian government with respect to your application, Mr Horne?

Richard Davey Benham and Patrick Scott Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Scott Horne, expatriate US citizen and wannabe Canadian, Québecois, translator, whatever, as you will notice in the above report have a new color: YELLOW. The color of cowards.


Benham and Horne Online.

(Copyright © 2003 Top20Fun.com at http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1359.html)



Please visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/ for more information on Benham and Horne.


Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 11:01
0 comments
Labels: Cowards, Defamation, Internet Abuse, Internet Terrorist, Internet Troll, P. Scott Horne, Richard Benham, Scott Waldman, Sockpuppet
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Cabal of Sleaze
Hypocrisy, duplicity and unctuousness: the Cabal of Sleaze.


Watch out! You may be in for a surprise!

Credits: Elephant Dung cartoon 1 - catalog reference jkon434 at www.CartoonStock.com.

If you like this great cartoon, visit http://www.cartoonstock.com/; there are hundreds of great cartoons there for licensing.)

Here you have individuals who appear as one thing yet at very shallow depths you find something entirely different:

The pseudosophistication of Joan Ross and her hysterical confessions of the "Joan Trap"; a foul-mouthed harridan putting on airs of rural noblesse while making a Bowery whore's mouth sound pious and who gilds lilies with pig dung and calls the lies perfumed truth.

Or the pseudocrusader John Luckacovic who in his avocation works with so much smoke and mirror deception he has made it routine and can't seem to shake the illusion from reality; he's the theatrical promoter who doesn't know the difference between satire and reportage, or between tag line and alias, or truth or fiction.

Or the chameleon nomad Internet troll Richard Benham who has the presumption to critique veteran translators' skills, competence, credentials and ethics while he, Benham, scarcely has any experience at all--claims all of four (4) years of translating experience--, has been shown to be dishonest and a fraud, yet continues trolling and pointing his brown purulent finger and unctuously spouting his craven defenses of his obvious malconduct.

Or the sockpuppet patsy of benhamian pablum, Scott Horne, who can't seem to stay anywhere long, banished from practically all professional translator sites, no professional profile, no résumé, no published credentials, not even a real citizen of anywhere (he left the US and filed his application for Canadian citizenship in 2007 (see http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/articles/2007/a-look-at-canada.html)) and though his native language would be US English, pompously joins with the real Québecois referring to the French language as "our" language. Mr Horne, who can't even find a homeland, is the one who is criticizing and libeling one who wore the uniform of his country for 5 years and received high recognition for his exceptional service. Horne, foul hypocrite.

For more on Mr Benham and Mr Horne visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/.

What do these individuals all have in common? Themselves. And it doesn't get much commoner.

UNCLEAN HANDS as the law calls it.

These are the types that point fingers and talk but their words have no meaning, no substance.

These types tend to coagulate together like a mass of maggots on rotting offal. They call to mind a particular local individual who is constantly dripping botulism-tainted honey from his arse-kissing mouth; we'll just use his initials here because he's not really on-topic, or relevant in any sense: JW. A local property owner has described him in the following words:


" 'Let's be good neighbors.' What a sickeningly insincere, mealy-mouthed androgynous creature! Apparently he has been attending Neighborly Etiquette hands-on --or is that mouth-off?-- workshops at the Ross / Luckacovic Centre for Culture and the Performing Arts. "
I'll stop here lest dilute the realist elegance of that poignant observation. It's just too precious.


Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 14:39
0 comments
Labels: Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Benham, Scott Horne
Monday, March 10, 2008
New Blog Alert
Visit and contribute to the new blog Translator Frauds and Wannabes at http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/.

Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne have complained bitterly that the Translator Frauds and Wannabes blog site was published but protected by "invitation only" security and that they were deprived of the knowledge of its contents. It should be noted that they were free to request access but did not.

In the interest of fairness to our illustrative examples of the Internet troll Mr Benham and his sockpuppet Mr Horne, we have temporarily removed the restriction on access to the Translator Frauds and Wannabes blog site so that Mr Benham and Mr Horne, the current star performers there, can read, copy, archive--or whatever they do--, the contents. It's only fair that they see what is reported there.

As in the past, we do invite Mr Benham and Mr Horne to make any comment they wish on the contents of the blog and, if civil and on topic, we will be pleased to allow them to be published.

We will allow unrestricted access to the blog until March 14, 2008, when the "invitation only" restriction will be reinstated.

Thank you!
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 12:49
0 comments
Labels: Blog, Fraud, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Wannabe
Friday, March 7, 2008
How Vital is Anonymous Speech? "Taglines"? Ambush?
The above cartoon by Peter Steiner has been reproduced from page 61 of July 5, 1993 issue of The New Yorker, (Vol.69 (LXIX) no. 20)



Ironically, in the same Times Union (Albany, New York) newspaper in which "brilliant" hack Scott Waldman (a so-called journalist writing for the Times Union, a Hearst Corporation newspaper) published his fatal libels at the behest of Internet troll Richard Benham and Sockpuppet Scott Horne, an article by Andrew Keen, written for the Los Angeles Times, appears, entitled "Just How vital is anonymous speech?" (Times Union, March 7, 2008, p. A11) Now am I really surprised that the Times Union couldn't have done this short but enlightened article on its own and had to lift it from another newspaper, a competitor no less (not a Hearst newspaper, obviously)?



Mr Keen writes:
"Unfortunately, however, that promise hasn't been realized. Today, too many anonymous Internet users are posting hateful content about their neighbors, classmates and co-workers; today, online media is an increasingly shadowy, vertiginous environment in which it is becoming harder and harder to know other people's real identities.

Mr Keen cites the case of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl living in a suburb of St. Louis. In 2006, Megan, an adolescent with the usual troubles, including being plumpish, involved in a multiweek "friendship" with an Internet denizen calling itself "Josh Evans" on MySpace. After "Josh" turned against Megan and posted a comment that "the world would be better place without you," the girl hung [sic] herself. It turned out that "Josh Evans" was in fact Lori Drew, a 47-year-old neighbor and mother of a girl with whom Megan Meier had had an argument.

It's situations like Megan's that send a wake-up call to lawmakers to do something about Internet abuse and start prosecuting it.

Kudos and a resonant BRAVO! for the St. Charles County (Missouri) Board of Aldermen who passed a law making Internet harassment a misdemeanor punishable by a fine as much as $500 and 90 days in jail. That's a very specific piece of legislation. New York already has a statute that covers electronic, including Internet, harassment, calling it "aggravated harassment" and makes it a Class A criminal misdemeanor.


Mr Keene cites several important cases in his article and writes

"These cases indicate that the U.S. Supreme Court soon might need to rethink the civic value of anonymous speech in the digital age. When cowardly anonymity is souring Internet discourse, it is hard to understand how anonymous speech is vital to a free society.
Particularly poignant are Mr Keen's concluding words:

"...On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. But it is the responsibility of all of us -- parents, citizens and lawmakers -- to ensure that contemporary Web users don't behave like antisocial canines. And one way is by introducing more legislation to punish anonymous sadists whose online lies are intended to wreck the reputations and mental health of innocent Americans."
Bravo! Mr Keen. Now if only your fellow journalists would jump on your bandwagon and practice more ethical journalism and go after legislators and law enforcement and self-serving district attorneys and public prosecutors to start going after the scoundrels, perhaps we can put the cowardly anonymous sadists and those with names on ice for good!

The entire Andrew Keen article can be read online at http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=669900&category=OPINION&newsdate=3/7/2008.

In the legal actions we've brought against our own examples of scoundrels we see almost every genre of cowardice: One defendant, John Luckacovic (New Baltimore, NY), claims out of one side of a smirking deceitful face that his use of a device to confuse the public was a "tag line". A "tag line" is tantamount to a slogan, a mark that identifies one with a particular feature. O.K. But he doesn't explain why he didn't use his own name in a text he wrote on his own and even paid for to have published. He also "interviews" himself in the text and his so-called "tag line" gives the false and misleading impression that it is more than one person publishing the text. That's one form of deceit--albeit backfiring and unsuccessful.

The other form is throwing out myriad factoids as if the were well founded and true; misleading the reader into thinking that what you have to say is real, well researched and factually true. Defendant John Luckacovic (New Baltimore, NY) and his co-defendant Joan Ross (New Baltimore, NY) use this in their libels and now they're sqirming to figure out how to wiggle out of what they had printed.

This is also the deceit and misinformation method used by Internet troll Richard Benham (no credible information) and his sockpuppet Scott Horne (Montréal, PQ) when they spoon fed hack journalist Scott Waldman (Albany Times Union, a Hearst Corporation Newspaper) with their factoids. What can these pitiful creatures be thinking?

Then there are the irresponsible, unethical publishers and journalists who pick up any scum and smear it across newsprint and call it news. Some, like Scott Waldman (Albany, NY) of the Times Union rely on Internet trolls and sockpuppets like Benham and Horne, even hysterics like Jane Lamb-Ruiz, for their factoids.

Or small-town publishers like defendant Richard Bleezarde of the Bleezarde Publishing Co., Inc., publisher of the rag the News Herald (Ravena, NY) who admits he doesn't even read texts he puts in his newspaper, much less verify the identity of the writer or even check the facts in what he prints.




Yet, these very scoundrels and cowards claim that they have a right of freedom of speech (but fail to mention the attendant responsibility and obligations not to abuse that freedom; see the New York State Constitution) and regrettably have the victim public's attention. Such abuse can't and won't go unpunished.

It's unfortunate that some Internet scoundrels are so cowardly and gutless that they choose to post their venom anonymously (for example, Mr Richard Benham and his cowing alias, "DINA" on the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forum). Sadly, too, Yahoo!Geocities allows Benham to continue to post his crapola on his website but other, more responsible ISPs and site owners have banned Benham (Yahoo! even reported that Benham had forged his e-mail address) and removed his site. Sockpuppet Scott Horne works better as a remora, attaching to bottom-feeder Benham and crapping where Benham craps. But like most Internet abusers, Internet trolls, sockpuppets, stooges and hacks, they all get prosecuted even if they think they can hide behind aliases, pseudo-anonymity. Just like the nefarious Lori Drew found she couldn't hide behind a fake name like "Josh Evans" and escape punishment, our examples of Internet criminals will soon face the music ... a very special "Requiem for the Internet coward".

Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 17:12
0 comments
Labels: Andrew Keen, Institute of Linguists, Internet Abuse, Richard Benham, Richard Bleezarde, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman, Times Union
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Shield Law No Protection / Montréal Agrees to Depose
We apologize for the several days we have not updated this blog but we've been working hard on several important legal issues.
As we have reported in previous blogs, the trial in the libel action we brought against defendants Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Bleezarde, Bleezarde Publishing Co., Inc. (publishers of the News Herald newspaper) is still calendared for April 14, 2008. Defendants asked us to agree to an adjournment, which we amicably consented to, but the the judge said "No way, José!" Defendants' attorneys have been very sloppy and thank G*d we have a no-nonsense judge on the case who doesn't put up with any lawyer crapola.

In the meantime, we are preparing our case against several individuals and a newspaper involved in the publishing of what Mr Scott Horne, in his benighted state, referred to as a "brilliant" journalistic piece by Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union, a Hearst Corporation newspaper, in which Waldman uses information obtained from Internet troll Richard Benham and his sockpuppet Scott Horne--despite the fact that Waldman was warned that the information was false or unverified and to publish it at his own (the Times Union's) risk and hazard.

How does that apply to Internet abuse? You may well ask. Well, the Times Union is part of a larger rag monger, the Hearst Corportation, and apparently stories written in the Times Union also get distributed to smaller papers and Waldman's article, if you've read Benham's and Horne's postings on their blogs, was also posted on the Internet. Several other papers picked up the story and posted it on the Internet. Very bad for them! False facts, defamatory facts, unchecked facts, facts published despite knowledge of their falsity or information that they are false or unverified = libel on its face. Big jury awards are looming on the horizon!

Some of our readers may think: Well freedom of the press...? No. That one won't work here. Case law shows this. Newspapers don't enjoy total protection. It's still libel. And Times v. Sullivan, Milkowitz, Immuno, Gertz and all of the daughter cases based on those milestones won't help either. We've studied past cases brought against the New York Times and against Hearst Corporation in the past and which won and didn't have half the ammo we've collected. Sure, Hearst will put up a pro forma defense and try to defend Waldman's stupidity but in the end we expect that they'll have to cave to justice. Their shareholders won't want the cat to hit the fan and get the publicity.

But what about the Shield Laws? There is no federal shield law in the United States, and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source" law. (For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws) Thus, a shield law may provide a privilege (viz. protection) to a reporter pursuant to which the reporter cannot be forced by subpoena or other court order to testify about information contained in a news story and/or the source of that information. It would not be a good thing to bet the farm on this one. Not entirely so, Mabel!

New York is known as a “Shield Law” state for its law that shields the press from compelled disclosure of news sources and other confidential information and from compelled disclosure of non-confidential information such as notes or outtakes. The privilege provided under the shield law not to disclose sources is “absolute,” i.e., non-defeasible under any circumstances. The privilege not to disclose notes and outtakes, on the other hand, is “qualified,” i.e., defeasible when the information sought is (1) highly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to a party’s claim or defense, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. For the landmark case on privilege see U.S. v. Cutler 1991 10CIR 1188 948 F.2d 691 and for the landmark case on overriding press privilege, see Krase v. Graco Children Products Inc. Careful, defendants!

We already know Waldman's sources--Benham and Horne admit to sending out [doctored] press kits and other fraudulent or illegally obtained information and have not been shy about publishing multiple admissions of their defamations--and have identified the locals who were/are involved, so half our work is done!

But note this: After Cutler v US, it appeared that reporters could protect their unpublished notes and outtakes only in New York’s state courts, not in its federal courts. If a reporter’s privilege existed in New York federal court at all, Cutler indicated that the three-prong press disclosure test would be applied so tepidly as to make the privilege doctrine a virtual dead letter. (see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26).

We won't bore our readers with a lengthy discussion of the ramifications and the benefit of these observations and how they help our case but, rest assured, the next round of lawsuits will be in Federal Court and not in New York State Supreme Court for obvious reasons.



More Good News!
The Superior Court of Québec, Montréal Division, has agreed to allow us to depose a certain Internet abuser and defamer in Montréal! The court will even provide examination room and will arrange for a court stenographer! What great service! The great thing about this is that if the sockpuppet doesn't show up, we have him picked up and arrested. That's only the half of the story. Since we'll be deposing him as a non-party, a third party, we don't have to notify defendants' attorneys and don't have to include them in the deposition. So, SURPRISE! This will be an excellent opportunity to develop winning tactics and overcome a certain someone's taking the Fifth Amendment protections to avoid answering deposition questions and we won't be jeopardizing our access to that certain someone by compelling her to answer our questions over her Fifth Amendment trick. One more loss for defendants. Too bad. We won't mention any names here because the suspense will be the icing on the cake.




Knock, knock ...

Who's there? Is it the
sheriff, the police, the bailiff, the process server, grandma? Guess ... or open the door and ... "You've been served!"

Surprised?

You shouldn't be!

Now you can bet the farm that certain Internet abusers and certain defamers and some idiotic journalists and their employers are going to have second thoughts in future before they play loose and easy with others' reputations and with their speech privileges and the law.

Stay tuned for news as it breaks!
Special thanks to the Superior Court of Québec, Montréal Division, Civil Part


(http://www.cba.org/quebec/Main/accueil/)

Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 09:47
0 comments
Labels: Bleezarde Publishing, Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Benham, Richard Bleezarde, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman, Times Union
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Libel in a Nutshell
Life in civilized society is governed fundamentally by a sense of decency and common sense; since ancient times laws have been enacted to provide guidance to those of humankind who may not be endowed with the requisite decency and common sense when exercising the divine spark of free will. Those of us with a sensibility for ethics, morality, justice, fairness have no problem with laws and social intercourse with those with whom we share this planet. Our motivations are generally principled and do no harm. Common-law malice is a concept that was created to describe the evil men do with an intent to harm; mean-spiritedness. In the United States, the concept of "constitutional malice" was created to describe the malice associated with a reckless or wanton disregard for falsity of one's statements and is most closely associated with the notion of free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the US constitution. The two malices are actually quite separate: common-law malice turns on a malfeasor's state of mind; constitutional malice turns on the malfeasor's knowledge of the falsity of his statements. Both malices are firmly established in the civil law of torts or that malconduct that causes injury or damages to another such as defamation (slander or libel), for example.

When discussing Internet trolls like Mr Richard Benham (photo right) and common journalist hacks like Mr Scott Waldman or their stooges like Mr Scott Horne and arch-defamer Joan Ross or their sockmonkeys John Luckacovic or Richard Bleezarde and Bleezarde Publishing Co., Inc. we are discussing tortious malconduct because these characters have caused damage to one's reputation through the publication of their false statements. Torts usually go hand-in-hand and where there is defamation there is usually tortious infliction of emotional distress, willful negligence, interference with economic advantage, etc. Thus, very generally, where there is defamation there is almost always something else, too.


The newer genre of legal specialization, Internet defamation or more specifically, Internet libel, is big and getting bigger. Courts worldwide are recognizing the problem and are creating an entire body of case law and common law that is wasting no time in getting the message out that society will not tolerate this malignancy growing out of the fertile resources of the Internet.

You may think that libel is limited to the printed word. Not so, Mabel! Libel is traditionally written defamation (slander is the spoken word) and is taken much more seriously by the courts because of its permanence in print as opposed to the evanescence of slander or the spoken world. Libel is not only permanent it is frequently more widely distributed as well.
Whereas in the US, defamation is generally a civil matter, some countries take a much more dire view of damage to reputation and it's treated as a criminal offence. Germany, for example, has very strict defamation laws.

Libel may occur in print, as in the example of Mr Scott Waldman's scandalous article in the Times Union (Hearst Corporation) or on line as in Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blogs or both, as when Mr Scott Waldman's article was further disseminated on the Internet by various other news media and other divisions of the Hearst Corporation. So, you see, it can get complicated.
If we consider that several malfeasors may have gotten their pointed heads together to hatch a "plan" to harm someone, it then reaches the criminal stage and becomes a conspiracy. We're now out of the scope of civil law and are now in criminal space. And say that the malfeasors are now working together on their plan and put it into action. It's discovered and they're told to stop. They don't (Of course not. They think they're untouchable!) and they continue. That's called aggravated harassment and is a criminal offence (in New York it's a misdemeanor).

And guess what, they're not untouchable because there are a number of "mutual assistance accords" that are treaties made between various countries that mean simply that they will assist each other in investigating, apprehending and prosecuting criminals.

Prosecuting slander or libel is as varied in its tactics and strategies as the words spoken or written. I would prefer to prosecut libel because it's tangible, palpable; the words are there for everyone to read. The damage is frequently what is called "on the face" (traditionally called "per se"); in other words, it's undeniable that the words as written would cause damage to a person's reputation. Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blogs are libelous on their face. Mr Scott Waldman's less-than-brilliant article is libelous on its face. The several local publishers, Lisa Deyo (Southern Albany County Ledger) and Linda Fenoff (Greenville Press) and Donna Rich (Daily Mail) used sound, good judgment and either opted not to publish Benham's and Horne's false facts or did so merely by-the-by and thus, by using good editorial discretion, avoided the risks associated with libel. They practice ethical (and safe) journalism; Linda Fenoff has a wall of awards and a well respected paper to show for it and Lisa Deyo is going strong on-line taking advantage of the opportunities offered by technology and a proper, decent use of the Internet.

That's defamation in a nutshell. There's more and we'll publish more as the events develop.
Thank you all for your interest and continuing support and visits!
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 03:44
0 comments
Labels: Defamation, Hearst Corporation, Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Libel, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman, Slander, Times Union
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Internet Troll Personality Disorder!
The News Is:
Some Internet Trolls May Have A Psychiatric Disorder!



Following a link searched by a visitor from Everyone's Internet (nps.k12.nj.us (IP 151.198.194.85)), (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Internet), I was absolutely amazed that there is serious discussion about the Internet Troll Personality Disorder! Following the link above will bring you to some interesting postings on the problem of the Internet troll, generally. But searching Internet Troll Personality Disorder will call up hits like Medical Forums (http://www.medical.gr77.com/viewtopic.php?t=14772) that actually discuss the problem in psychiatric terms (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm). According to this explanation, the Internet troll is suffering a real psychiatrict disorder.


This sheds new light on Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's very bizarre defamation campaigns and their uncanny success in convincing the Times Union (a newspaper of the Hearst Corporation) "hill-town" reporter, Mr Scott Waldman, to buy into their scam. Mr Waldman fell for the tricksters' lines but fortunately other publishers did not. Why was that, one wonders? While calling the duped Mr Waldman's scandalous and misinformed article "brilliant" because he bought into their crapola, they had particularly unkind words for more ethical journalists who tole them to take a hike with their proposal for libel (see Benham's and Horne's published rants at their blog sites).


It is remarkable that there is so much attention being given to the Internet troll phenomenon on the Internet and so many people have been harmed by Internet troll malconduct that it is now being considered a psychopathic or a sociopathic disorder.


Now that raises the question of whether the persons who collaborate with the Internet troll are also subject to psychopathic or sociopathic classification. An interesting question because many persons with psychopathic and sociopathic disorders do attract a certain following characterized by psychological, social, emotional needs that are satisfied by the intimate association with the person with the primary disorder. That may explain Mr Scott Horne's infatuation with Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Waldman's sucesptibility to being duped by Benham and Horne and even Benham's and Horne's outrage and backlash resulting from the rejection they received from other publisher's. These revelations certainly give one pause to consider what is really going on in Benham's and Horne's, even Joan Ross' and Scott Waldman's heads.


Well, the notion of the Internet Troll Personality Disorder certainly might explain a great many things that have come to light since last August.

trinidad a dit…

Now how would they know?



Internet Troll Benham and Horne presume to comment on their fantasies on a trial about which they claim to have a plethora of information and details but one fact nags one: Benham and Horne were not even in the United States at the time of the events they presume to be discussing with such authority. Perhaps they can share their source(s) of the factoids they're rambling on about? Only a handful of persons were in the courtroom at any time and an even smaller number were present (probably 4, at most, not counting defendant John Luckacovic). They'll all be reasonably easy to depose at the next trial.

In fact, Sockpuppet Scott Horne was put on notice when it became apparent the may appear. John Luckacovic's attorney was served with notice that if Horne appeared anywhere in the vicinity or on US soil law enforcement authorities would be requested to immediately arrest him and anyone aiding or abetting his escape would be made accountable for obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a suspect of criminal conduct.

Despite Benham's and Horne's fantasies, they know nothing factual and are reporting nothing they can possibly personally know to be true fact. Nothing new.
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 10:35
0 comments
Labels: Criminal, Defamation, Harassment, Internet Troll, John Luckacovic, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Sockpuppet
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Depositions To Be Posted Soon
For those of you who are interested, the depositions of the defendants in the civil lawsuit arising from the 2005 defamations will be published on a dedicated website. They are being scanned so that you will be able to read them in their entireties.

We'll keep you posted.
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 07:32
0 comments
Labels: Hearst Corporation, Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman, Times Union
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Requiem for an Internet Troll, His Pet Sockpuppet and their Stooges
Dear Readers:

Back in December, I created this blog to expose a reprehensible species of Internet criminals who set themselves up to be judges, jury, and executioners by scurrilously attacking innocent persons whom the scoundrels had never met, worked for, nor even contacted prior to their excursions into the abyss of depraved rantings.

I was one of their victims but I didn't lie down and play dead as did most of the others. When Richard Davey Benham and Scott Horne and their minions picked on me they obviously had no clue what they were getting involved in. They now know and they regret it. Believe me.

After many weeks of following their trails and demanding investigations, we can close this chapter of criminal behavior and can now start processing the criminal and civil claims against Benham and Horne and one or two others who lent their support to thier reprehensible malconduct.

Thanks to the cooperation of ethically and professionally run operations and to the support of persons who will not tolerate Internet abuse and defamation, Benham and Horne and their stooges have been exposed for what they are: liars and frauds.

The postings on this blog have been factual, honest, hopefully entertaining and informative, and intended to combat a very real and very damaging Internet phenomenon, trolls and sockpuppets, and the abuse they craft. We hope it's a start and a contribution to the other courageous persons who have stepped forward to fight Internet abuse and to dispatch those who misuse the Internet for their own perverse purposes.

There is a special place for the Richard Benhams and Scott Hornes of the world and for their collaborators and now that I have succeeded in proving them to be liars and frauds, I'm going to put the mater to rest and pronounce requiesquat in pace over this issue now that they have been exposed.

To my readers: Thank you! for following the evolution of the demise of two scoundrels and thank you for your interest. But whatever you do, don't forget the problem and do what you can to fight back!

To the Internet scoundrels still out there all I have to say is: Watch out!
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 10:59
0 comments
Labels: Defamation, Fraud, Internet Abuse, Joan Ross, P. Scott Horne, Richard Benham, Scott Waldman
Another Benham Fraud ...
After many weeks, Credentials Inc., the parent company of DegreeChk, Richard Benham's so-called source of his defamatory postings, has responded with a report on the results of their investigation relating to Benham's inquiries, apparent fraudulent representations and abuse of the information obtained.

Mr T. McKechney, CEO of Credentials Inc., in a letter dated April 11, 2008, wrote the following:


"We received your complaint on December 26th, 2007 that an individual had obtained information relating to your academic record at the University at Albany, State University of New York (hereinafter know [sic] as SUNY Albany), and subsequently published the information on an internet blog site. Our investigation found that on July 30, 2007 an individual identified as Richard Davey Benham registered with our service and immediately performed a verification on Harold W. Vadney from SUNY Albany. The results of the verification were emailed to Benham at 'me@rbenham.com’. As you noted in your email to our Mr. Terry Reed, our report represented your BA degree erroneously as a BS. You also indicated at the time that your graduate studies were not reflected in the report. (I will explain the nature of
these reporting differences in a later paragraph.)


*****


"Pursuant to the terms set forth in the agreement, we attempted to reach Mr. Benham in order to obtain “proof of such written consent”.

"Initially, we attempted to reach Mr. Benham using the email address he provided as part of his registration. We received no response to repeated attempts. We attempted to reach him by telephone, again, without success. Finally, we sent a hard copy letter via Federal Express to the Indonesian address Benham provided in his DegreeChk registration. We were informed by Federal Express that no such address exists.

"It is our conclusion, therefore, that Richard Davey Benham misrepresented to us
that he possessed an appropriate authorization to perform this verification. We further conclude, by virtue of the fact that he provided false contact information, that the individual known to us as Richard Davey Benham did not use the information he obtained for any legitimate business purpose. In effect, we conclude that Mr. Benham knowingly violated the terms of our Service Agreement.
"We have disabled Benham’s User ID with our service and referred this matter to our legal counsel for disposition. We have been advised, however, that obtaining any relief in this matter may be impossible as we have no idea where Mr. Benham is at the present time, nor do we have any means of contacting him.

*****

" Mr. Vadney, I find this whole situation very unfortunate. We are very proud of the service we provide. We have made the whole process of verifying academic credentials more accurate and efficient, thus benefitting universities, employers and even job candidates. In our 10 years of operation, I can never recall another situation where the process has been abused as it was in this case. To say the least, we are outraged at this course of events. For you, Mr. Vadney, we are sorry that you are caught up in this business and we hope that you find a way to reconcile matters with Mr. Benham."

Need I say more?

Except for just a couple of loose ends, this just about wraps up the outstanding investigations and we can now proceed against the various malfeasors involved in this reprehensible business.

In summary:

Richard Benham and Scott Horne posted a scandalous and defamatory site called the Independent Linguists Discussion forum that was deleted by Bravenet.com and Benham and Horne banned from using that provider/host;
Richard Benham abused Bravenet's copyrights and was forced to remove material from his reposted forum page to ensure that no reference to Bravenet appeared;
Richard Benham and Scott Horne posted scandalous and defamatory postings on TranslatorsCafe with links to their bogus discussion forum; the thread was frozen and all references to Benham's and Horne's so-called forum were removed;
Richard Benham and Scott Horne duped a local backwoods reporter, Mr Scott Waldman, who reports on the "hill towns" for the Times Union, a newspaper of the Hearst Corporation, into printing their lies (article appearing in the August 22, 2007, Times Union);
Harold Vadney subsequently produced his Institute of Linguists diploma--disproving Benham's and Horne's claims--and forwarded a copy to the now Chartered Institute of Linguists' officer corresponding with Benham and Horne but who inexplicably (or explicably) disappeared or is no longer with the Institute'' and the Institute has been reticent on the subject ever since;
Harold Vadney produced his RSA certificate of election to fellowship--again disproving Benham's and Horne's claims;
Benham and Horne were rebuffed by other, more ethical publishers, who were then abused by Benahm and Horne;
Upon investigation, Yahoo!Groups found that Richard Benham forged his Yahoo! e-mail address;
Upon investigation, the United States Army confirmed Harold Vadney's military decorations and honorable discharge, proving that Benham and Horne's statements and Scott Waldman's article were false in reporting that any of Harold Vadney's military awards was revoked;
Scott Horne was banned from TranslatorsCafe for his malconduct there (unrelated to his other malconduct as reported on this blog);
Scott Horne's profile has disappeared from ProZ;
Scott Horne appears to have been involved with a defendant in a defamation lawsuit in New York Supreme Court and that involvement will result in civil charges against both Horne (who for some undisclosed reason has fled to Canada, given up his US citizenship and has applied for Canadian citizenship);
Credentials, Inc., the parent company of DegreeChk, has confirmed its findings (vide supra) that Richard Benham fraudulently obtained information from their service and abused their terms of service.
Wherever Benham and Horne were shown to be frauds, their only recourse was to either discredit the organization exposing them or fabricated yet another lie replete with wanton speculations;
Etc., etc., etc.
It appears nothing at all in any of Benham's and Horne's ravings or in the Waldman article of August 22, 2007 (which was based on information provided by Richard Benham and Scott Horne) was true and Benham's and Horne's unfounded attacks on local publishers who refused to publish their smut were unfounded, and reports allegedly made by Ms Jane Lamb-Ruiz were all bogus and based on fraudulent information. Ms Lamb-Ruiz's hystrionics and her reliance on two scoundrels for her information is the epitome of recklessness.

Criminal and civil charges are forthcoming against those conveniently within the reach of the United States law enforcement and justice system.

Anyone consulting these pages should be as outraged as Mr McKechney and others, including myself, the victim of this outrageous misconduct and abuse, are and should ostracize the Internet troll, his sockpuppet and their stooges accordingly.

It appears that Benham and Horne wrongfully hurt a number of people and made absolute fools of a far greater number who may have swallowed their lies.
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 10:00
0 comments
Labels: Abuse, Fraud, Jane Lamb-Ruiz, Joan Ross, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Reason Comments are Moderated
You don't really have to wonder that species like Richard Benham and Scott Horne get to publish their ridiculous babblings and why sites and blogs really cannot be left to the good sense, decency and intellect of visitors.

Just have a look at the 4-word, almost English comment left by one of our remarkably gifted retarded visitors below in the previous posting.

Makes a cretin cockroach look brilliant!
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 17:32
0 comments
Labels: Defamation, Internet Abuse, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Can of worms? Benham and Horne got problems...
What have you done Mr Benham? Mr Horne?
Looks like you've opened a can of worms! What are you going to do now?

With their last ridiculous antics our Internet troll Richard Benham and his sockpuppet Scott Horne appear to have opened a can of worms by first prematurely publishing their libels, then idiotically requesting the official custodian of military records for information on Harold Vadney's military record, receiving the official information, then actually publishing the information on their so-called blog, and then, finding that their gooses are cooked like the craven cretins that they are, they totally misinterpret what they received. They can't even read!
Get this: Benham has already admitted in one of his recent Benham-Horne dialogues, yes admitted, that he's "a bit dyslexic". A dyslexic wannabe translator. Now that takes the booby prize! What cookoo's nest did these two lunatics fall out of anyway?

But now they're really squirming and are tripping over themselves trying to talk themselves out of the pickle they've gotten themselves into ... and gotten "brilliant" Times Union journalist Scott Waldman into a bit of that same pickle.

But there is still a humorous side to all of this when you read that they allege one can enlist in the military for a particular posting. These two pinko girlscouts, Benham and Horne, are so incredibly naïve--but what do you expect from their kind. Anyone enlisting and in a position to tell the military where to post them would certainly choose someplace like San Diego, Honalulu, the Mediterranean. Sorry Mr Benham, Mr Horne; while you were out selling girlscout cookies, the military was sending men where the military wanted them or needed them. Duh!

Just visualizing the troll and the sockpuppet doing a frantic jig, clicking away at their keyboards, cutting and pasting, conferring with their New Baltimore contacts...what an infernal BUZZ that must be! Joan Ross must be fuming not to be able to take credit for her own "vitriolic character assassinations" (just quoting her).

Please forgive me if I make the impression that I'm gloating but I am seriously enjoying this moment; I've waited so long for it and worked so hard at mining the truth and now I almost feel sorry for the pitiful duo, Benham and Horne. Should I feel guilty about causing two middle-aged caricatures such pain, two wannabes who already have the "troll personality disorder" and are so angry, so deprived and who have no self-respect nor do they enjoy any self-esteem? NOT!

Mr Benham and Mr Horne, together with their hacks and stooges have brought it upon themselves because they are summarily vile and dishonest.



Is this Internet troll Benham or sockpuppet Horne at the keyboard?
We can't tell which end is doing the talking or typing!
(Photo credit: Stock Photography & Royalty Free Stock Photos at http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/earthworm.html)
More on Benham and Horne at http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/
Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 14:13
0 comments
Labels: Coward, Joan Ross, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Scott Waldman, Sockpuppet, Troll
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Grasping at straws, gasping! Internet Terrorism à la Troll and Sockpuppet!


Benham or Horne looking for something to post on their blogs.


(Copyright © 2003 Top20Fun.com at http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1359.html)






Internet troll Richard Benham and sockpuppet Scott Horne, our illustrative examples of craven Internet abusers and defamers, are scraping the bottom of their chamber pots for anything, absolutely anything to save their bloated butts. So far they've tried--pitifully unsuccessfully--to bully their victims into silence; they then concocted every genre of specious and scurrilous accusation and fraud imaginable only to be caught red-handed and subjected to investigation and censure (soon prosecution); they then attempted venomous ad hominem attacks on their courageous challenger and were promptly slapped down for what they are, cowardly rodents; they then attacked persons close to their valiant victim and were ignored (the worst thing one can do to an Internet troll or sockpuppet like Benham or Horne, respectively).

Richard Benham and Scott Horne have properly and lawfully been exposed for what they are. They are factually and objectively absolutely worse than anything they have claimed their vicitims to be. Even if one were to believe the egregious lies and speculations that Benham and Horne have so cravenly posted on their silly dialogue with each other that's masquerading as a blog. (If anyone has actually read Benham's and Horne's blog PLEASE post your comments here!)

Benahm and Horne, despite numerous demands, warnings and notices continue their Internet abuse and defamations with impunity--despite the fact that they are making such pitiful fools of themselves and entrenching themselves only more deeply in their depravity. One wonders, what do these two lunatics think they have to gain with such idiotic exhibitionism? Such a lack of intellectual input; such puerile, preadolescent babbling; such uninteresting, transparent drivel. Such abject anger! One shudders to think what sort of dark disappointment, such deep pain they are feeling to have to lash out as they do. Benham's self-righteous puffery and bantering about his linguistic skills (Yeah! those 4 years of experience. Duh! You go girl!) and he doesn't even have an address, a domicile! Then there's Horne's loss of a homeland and pitiful attempts to immerse himself and assimilate into the depressed segregation of Québec, an expatriate American turned wannabe Québecois. Now what does that tell you? Two losers trying to pull down real champions. Simply pitiful!




Horne and Benham are such losers that they don't even publish anything about themselves...is that to prevent anyone from perhaps finding out a bit more about these two imbecilic itenerate indigent Internet terrorists?


Wannabe Canadian Horne has been reported to have fed false information to the media and has recently requested and received information confirming everything that Harold Vadney has said from the start. What is the sockpuppet Horne going to do now that he sees he has absolute proof that he lied--poetic justice: Horne requested the information showing him to be a craven liar! We are musing what Mr Scott Waldman, wannabe reporter for the Albany Times Union newspaper, a Hearst Corporation publication, will have to say when Benham and Horne have to recant their accusations? Any suggestions Sir Troll, Master Sockpuppet?

Horne filed his application for Canadian citizenship in about February 2007; we will be contacting the Canadian immigration authorities shortly with a complaint and an inquiry asking if that's the best that Canada can do as far as attracting immigrants. Have you received a response from the Canadian government with respect to your application, Mr Horne?

Richard Davey Benham and Patrick Scott Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Scott Horne, expatriate US citizen and wannabe Canadian, Québecois, translator, whatever, as you will notice in the above report have a new color: YELLOW. The color of cowards.


Benham and Horne Online.

(Copyright © 2003 Top20Fun.com at http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1359.html)



Please visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/ for more information on Benham and Horne.


Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 11:01
0 comments
Labels: Cowards, Defamation, Internet Abuse, Internet Terrorist, Internet Troll, P. Scott Horne, Richard Benham, Scott Waldman, Sockpuppet
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Cabal of Sleaze
Hypocrisy, duplicity and unctuousness: the Cabal of Sleaze.


Watch out! You may be in for a surprise!

Credits: Elephant Dung cartoon 1 - catalog reference jkon434 at www.CartoonStock.com.

If you like this great cartoon, visit http://www.cartoonstock.com/; there are hundreds of great cartoons there for licensing.)

Here you have individuals who appear as one thing yet at very shallow depths you find something entirely different:

The pseudosophistication of Joan Ross and her hysterical confessions of the "Joan Trap"; a foul-mouthed harridan putting on airs of rural noblesse while making a Bowery whore's mouth sound pious and who gilds lilies with pig dung and calls the lies perfumed truth.

Or the pseudocrusader John Luckacovic who in his avocation works with so much smoke and mirror deception he has made it routine and can't seem to shake the illusion from reality; he's the theatrical promoter who doesn't know the difference between satire and reportage, or between tag line and alias, or truth or fiction.

Or the chameleon nomad Internet troll Richard Benham who has the presumption to critique veteran translators' skills, competence, credentials and ethics while he, Benham, scarcely has any experience at all--claims all of four (4) years of translating experience--, has been shown to be dishonest and a fraud, yet continues trolling and pointing his brown purulent finger and unctuously spouting his craven defenses of his obvious malconduct.

Or the sockpuppet patsy of benhamian pablum, Scott Horne, who can't seem to stay anywhere long, banished from practically all professional translator sites, no professional profile, no résumé, no published credentials, not even a real citizen of anywhere (he left the US and filed his application for Canadian citizenship in 2007 (see http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/articles/2007/a-look-at-canada.html)) and though his native language would be US English, pompously joins with the real Québecois referring to the French language as "our" language. Mr Horne, who can't even find a homeland, is the one who is criticizing and libeling one who wore the uniform of his country for 5 years and received high recognition for his exceptional service. Horne, foul hypocrite.

For more on Mr Benham and Mr Horne visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/.

What do these individuals all have in common? Themselves. And it doesn't get much commoner.

UNCLEAN HANDS as the law calls it.

These are the types that point fingers and talk but their words have no meaning, no substance.

These types tend to coagulate together like a mass of maggots on rotting offal. They call to mind a particular local individual who is constantly dripping botulism-tainted honey from his arse-kissing mouth; we'll just use his initials here because he's not really on-topic, or relevant in any sense: JW. A local property owner has described him in the following words:


" 'Let's be good neighbors.' What a sickeningly insincere, mealy-mouthed androgynous creature! Apparently he has been attending Neighborly Etiquette hands-on --or is that mouth-off?-- workshops at the Ross / Luckacovic Centre for Culture and the Performing Arts. "
I'll stop here lest dilute the realist elegance of that poignant observation. It's just too precious.


Posted by Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations at 14:39
0 comments
Labels: Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Benham, Scott Horne
Monday, March 10, 2008
New Blog Alert
Visit and contribute to the new blog Translator Frauds and Wannabes at http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/.

Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne have complained bitterly that the Translator Frauds and Wannabes blog site was published but protected by "invitation only" security and that they were deprived of the knowledge of its contents. It should be noted that they were free to request access but did not.

In the interest of fairness to our illustrative examples of the Internet troll Mr Benham and his sockpuppet Mr Horne, we have temporarily removed the restriction on access to the Translator Frauds and Wannabes blog site so that Mr Benham and Mr Horne, the current star performers there, can read, copy, archive--or whatever they do--, the contents. It's only fair that they see what is reported there.

As in the past, we do invite Mr Benham and Mr Horne to make any comment they wish on the contents of the blog and, if civil and on topic, we will be pleased to allow them to be published.

We will allow unrestricted access to the blog until March 14, 2008, when the "invitation only" restriction will be reinstated.

Thank you!

Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations a dit…

Hi, Trinidad!
Nice hearing from you. Can you please contact me directly.

Kind regards,
Harold W. Vadney
hvadney@mhcable.com

trinidad a dit…

Dozens of slandered translators and law inforcement agencies have tried to get hold of Richard Benham's address and telephone number but of course he doesn't have one; can't be found, isn't answerable to his unfounded accusations - in fact he's been in so much trouble with the law that he's on the run but still seems to be able to find the time to continue his hate campaign against what should be his colleagues. Harold Vadny, one of his innocent victims, has had the courage to take him on and challenge his paranoid rantings and the real translating community congratulates him on his attempts to bring this sociopath to justice.

Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations a dit…

Hello, Trinidad!

Please contact me privately at hvadney@mhcable.com. I'd really like to verify that you are not one of the defendants in the current lawsuit and I'd like to share some details with you.

Perhaps you can help.

Harold Vadney
hvadney@mhcable.com

Harold W. Vadney, Director, Operations a dit…

Benham is dead and his most recent address is Canto XI, Circle 6, Hell.

Here's a 'memoriam' on the nefarious defunct: http://bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com/

Harold Vadney