I am not sure which property the Vadney means by “our beautiful property”; he variously gives his street address as 18 New Street, New Baltimore, NY 12124 and 10 New Street, New Baltimore, NY 12124. The other obvious question is why “our”? Is there a Mrs Vadney, for example? And does the Vadney’s near-constant use of what appears to be the “royal plural” actually a sign that he is acting in concert with a partner?
Anyway, I have now completed my property search of the two properties in question, and I find that they are adjacent properties, with tax-map IDs of 7.16-2-2 (number 18) and 7.16-2-4 (number 10), both of them owned by one Edward Hayes III. Now, I have not been under any illusions about Mr Vadney’s sexuality since he started throwing homophobic innuendos and insults at me (read some of his early blog entries, with reference to mutual masturbation, etc....). So I assume that Mr Hayes III is “Mrs Vadney”. So why is “our” property in Hayes III’s name only? Is it so that Vadney III, well-known for his vexatious and frivolous litigation, makes a small target when it comes to execution of orders for costs? Is it because Vadney III was penniless when he met Hayes III and continues to earn next to nothing?
It appears that no 10 New Street is uninhabitable, but Mr Vadney III uses it as an address for service. That’s a pretty cheap way to avoid your responsibilities, isn’t it?
There is some suggestion that Hayes III and Vadney III may even be related, if only by adoption. Consider this obituary, from the Daily Times, 19 March 2003, of his grandmother, Marguerite Cioffi:
She is survived by her loving daughter, Mrs. Harold (Anita) Vadney of West Coxsackie; her devoted grandchildren, Harold W. Vadney III of New Baltimore, Ann Marie Vadney of Albeny, John Vadney and his wife Dawn of Selkirk, Joseph Vadney of Hannacroix, Paula Jean Vadney of Schodack, Mary Vadney, wife of the late Richard Vadney of West Coxsackie, and her adoptive grandson Edward J. Hayes III of New Baltimore.
Looks like Harold III and Edward III are adoptive cousins. Or does it? Mrs Cioffi is only listed as having one child, Anita. There is a list of relatives who predeceased her, and none of them is a child. You cannot adopt someone as a grand-child, and it seems Mrs Cioffi had no adopted children. So it seems that there is only one way Mr Hayes III could be Mrs Cioffi’s “adopted grandson”: by being adopted by Vadney III’s mother Anita Vadney. That makes the Messrs III adoptive brothers. That’s what I call keeping it in the family!
A more sober possibility is that passing Mr Hayes III off as Mrs Cioffi’s adoptive grandson was just a cowardly way of including him as a member of her extended family without revealing the exact nature of the relationship with young Harold III.
Of course, if Mr Edward J. Hayes III really is involved in the production of the Vadney’s blog, that means that the two of them are in a conspiracy. I wonder how he feels about being dragged into this sordid affair by his partner. I wonder how he will feel if he gets prosecuted because of it. I wonder how he will feel about references to this blog showing up in search engine searches for his name....