Harold W. Vadney III is a wannabe translator who lies about his credentials. In August 2007, I exposed him on the now-defunct Network of Independent Linguists’ Discussion Forum. He has now set up a blog devoted to telling lies about me and others. This is my reply. To comment or for further information write to Richard_Benham_AU-StopVadneysLies[at]yahoo.com.

Sunday, 13 January 2008

Little Mr Inadequate is shitting his pants now...!


I have been loath to publish too many entries, because, unless I just repeat myself, they detract attention away from the objective facts and arguments. So here’s a recapitulation of the objective facts.

(1) From at least as early as 2000, a charlatan wannabe translator, Harold William Vadney III, advertised himself on the Internet as a Master of Arts of SUNY at Albany, a Member of the Insitute of Linguists and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.

(2) Harold William Vadney III was none of those things.

(3) In August 2007, I published, on the now defunct Network of Independent Linguists’ discussion forum, an exposé revealing the facts listed at (1) and (2) above.

(4) As the charlatan Vadney was also using these lies in his campaign for election as Town Justice in the hamlet of New Baltimore, New York, the Albany Times Union took an interest in the case, and published a story by one Scott Waldman, raising the matters referred to at (1) and (2) above, and some others.

(5) Since that time, the charlatan Harold William Vadney III has been waging a hate campaign of lies, distortions and irrelevant half-truths against me and anyone else he considers to have been involved in the exposure of his charlatanism.

There is ample evidence for (1) all over the web. Although Vadney changed his various CVs and profiles shortly after being exposed, there is nothing he can do about archived or cached copies of his puff pages. The evidence for (2) came from the organizations concerned; copies of the emails I received from them are in the zip-folder at <http://www.rbenham.com/Vadney/Press_Kit.zip>, along with a small selection of the Vadney’s puff pages.

Vadney has since disputed the contents of the emails from DegreeChk.com (agents for SUNY) and the IoL. The arguments he raises are typical of his dishonesty and desperation. He claims the IoL forgot about an exam he did way back in 1981. On the IoL’s own forum, he claims that he “sat the then IoL examinations in London in about 1981 and received the certificate 'Associate of the IoL' etc.” So much voluntary self-incrimination: “Associate” is a lower grade of affiliation than “Member”, and the Vadney consistently claimed the latter, either explicitly or by using the abbreviation MIL (Member of the Institute of Linguists) rather than AIL (Associate of the Institute of Linguists), which, by his own account, he just may have been entitled to for a period of one year at most. Similarly, he complains that DegreeChk.com gave me “inaccurate” information, but the only inaccuracy was that it said he had a Bachelor of Science degree rather than Bachelor of Arts—of no relevance to the undeniable fact that he lied by claiming a Master of Arts degree.

So far, the Vadney has not even thought up a plausible excuse for claiming to be a Fellow of the RSA.

The Vadney’s latest pseudo-legal posturings

In his latest blog entry, the Vadney tells us:

What Internet defamers do not seem to grasp is that (1) the defamed does not have to prove the falsity, the defamer has to prove the truth of the statements published, (2) that in a civil defamation lawsuit the presumption in most jurisdictions is that the statements are false and that the defendant must prove the truth of the statements, (3) that jurisdictions generally have established systems of so called "mutual assistance" in both criminal and civil matters. What this means is that a case can be filed in the US and a foreign jurisdiction will cooperate in the investigation phase, the prosecution phase, the enforcement/execution stage. (4) Most defamation (libel and slander) cases not only involve the actual defamation but also secondary counts associated with the defamation or resulting from the defamation. (5) When a case is brought, the defendant must defend against it whether right or wrong; that costs time and money. As a result, everyone loses until the judgment or jury verdict comes in.

Let’s look at this rant objectively.

(1), (2) In his typical puffed-up style, the Vadney makes the same point twice. With typical intellectual dishonesty, he begs the question by referring to the “defamed” and “defamer” rather than “plaintiff” and “defendant” in (1). (In this case, who is really the “defamed” and who the “defamer”? ) Why does the Vadney even raise this question of burden of proof? Because he is shitting his pants, that’s why! Why would you want to make an issue of the burden of proof if you were in the right?! Translation of (1) and (2): “I, the Vadney, alias Little Mr Inadequate, know that I’m dead wrong, but I’m hoping as a last resort that you won’t be able to prove it!’ Sorry, Haroldkins, there’s enough evidence to nail you on the criminal standard of proof, let alone the civil!

(3) Just random ravings. The Vadney hopes to frighten me with the prospect of some kind of international proceedings. No such luck. Besides, he glosses over the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings.

(4) So what?

(5) Again, this only requires translation from Vadneyese to show that it’s another desperate bluff: “I, Little Mr Inadequate, alias the Vadnikins, know I haven’t got a leg to stand on, but I can always threaten you with the trouble and expense of defending one of my famous vexatious and frivolous lawsuits.”

Vadney, Master Spy?

In earlier entries, Little Mr Inadequate regales us with stories like:

'Benham Spotters' have placed him in various locales but we need to know exactly where he is so we can keep the authorities informed ...


There are too many of us out there watching, waiting and ready to do our part in stopping scoundrels and cowards who misuse the Internet to perpetrate their malconduct.

Now why exactly would these “authorities” be interested in hearing from Little Mr Inadequate about my whereabouts? Does it not occur to Mr Inadequate that I show my (genuine) passport on request from the “authorities” when I travel, and that they have a much better idea of where I am than he does? (Actually, I did post my exact coördinates on ProZ.com; I have since moved a few hundred metres because accommodation is pretty tight around here at this time of year.)

But especially noteworthy is the implication that Little Mr Inadequate is the head of a network of spies...and wrongdoers like me have nowhere to hide. This sounds awfully like a threat to me, but I am not exactly quaking in my boots.


One thing that has emerged remarkably consistently from Little Mr Inadequate’s rantings is that whatever he accuses others of applies to himself, not to them. So he has accused me of lying, fraud, defamation, criminality and even impotence. (I will forbear all reference to his allusions to homosexuality.) What does this say about him?

Well, one other term he likes to bandy about is “puffery”. This makes me think of some animals, which use inflatable sacs to make themselves look bigger to potential rivals or predators. This is exactly what Little Mr Inadequate does too. Note his consistent use of “we” and his habit of referring to himself in the third person. And don’t forget the network of spies he commands...in his own pathetic little imagination.

Footnote: One of Little Mr Inadequate’s recent outrages has been to refer to me as an “alleged "translator"” This is a clear slight to my professional competence. In the unlikely event that any real translator who reads this has any illusions about the Vadney’s competence, I suggest you go to ProZ.com and/or TranslatorsCafe.com and look at his terminology questions. Don’t bother looking for his answers: he is far to self-centred to think of helping anybody else—mercifully so, as it happens. One of his major triumphs was to ask (on ProZ.com’s KudoZ) about the meaning of the French preposition à (a question which I answered!). Admittedly, it was in a chemical/medical context, but it could have been answered by anyone with a high-school knowledge of chemistry, let alone the “clinical scientist” the Vadney claims to be. A total fraud.


Scott Horne said...

Psychologists refer to that phenomenon as projection. Secretly cognizant of his own faults but unwilling to acknowledge them, the charlatan Vadney projects them onto others.

Note that the charlatan Vadney made a thinly veiled threat to bring a suit that could be "right or wrong", which of course means that it would be the latter--an utterly unmeritorious, vexatious, and frivolous case intended merely to harass others by wasting their valuable time and resources.

Richard D. Benham said...

Exactly, to both points, Scott.

Of course the danger with accusing someone of projection is that they can immediately turn the accusation back on you. That’s where having documentary evidence makes the difference.

On the subject of the “right or wrong” suit, I was trying to make the same point with my translation from Vadneyese. There would be no point in his making this point (that even an unmeritorious suit is a pain in the arse) if there were actually any merit in his case.

Richard D. Benham said...

I just got this email from the Vadney, after I sent him a friendly note about my new blog which I explicitly set up for his benefit, providing him with much-needed spiritual guidance:

Mr Benham:

You have been asked and explicitly warned in past communications to
and desist your conspiracies and harassment with Mr Scott Horne and his
correspondent Ms Joan Ross.

You have been asked in the past to avoid contacting me by e-mail or any
other means. This is my final demand to you to cease and to desist any
contact with me by any means.

[Reality check here: This is (surprise surprise!) a lie. I have received no such communication. Besides, Little Mr Inadequate actually sent me an email asking me where I was only a few days ago: See below.]

I am hereby serving upon you my demand that you cease and desist
any further potentially defamatory statements of, about or concerning
me; I
further demand that you cease and desist any further harassment of me
by any
means but especially by publicly electronically posting written
about me on the Internet.

[Huh? I set up this blog in response to your ignominious effort! (Do you really expect anyone to believe that your tauroscatological outpourings are not harassing and defaming! Since when was countering your filth and lies with the truth either a crime or a tort?) Besides, what does “potentially defamatory” mean? Might be defamatory if they weren’t true?]

I now hereby serve you with final demand to cease and desist your
defamations, your harassment and to avoid any further potentially
conspiratorial activities with Mr Horne or any defendant in the pending
lawsuit involving his correspondent, Ms Joan Ross of New Baltimore, New

[Here we go again! More potentially this and potentially that!]

Most particuarly, I consider your continuing postings of harassing and
defamatory personal attacks on your so-called blogs to be a
continuation of
your campaign of criminal harassment and your continued involvement
with Mr
Horne and others known to me constitutes criminal conspiracy to harass
to defame.

[Little Mr Inadequate, there are some very good legal glossaries online, provided by university law schools and even some major law firms. There are also good legal dictionaries available for sale in bookshops. Before you sink too much further into the mire, I suggest you find such a reference, and look up such basic concepts as “criminal”, “conspiracy”, “harassment” and “defamation”.]

This is my final warning to you to avoid creating any further problems
yourself, Mr Horne or any other person who has the lack of prudence to
cooperating or collaborating with you.


Harold W. Vadney

First of all, I note the address he sent this email to, the very one he has previously claimed was “forged” (another big word from such a little man): <richard_benham_au-stopvadneyslies@yahoo.com”.

A few days earlier, the following arrived in my Bulk folder. I didn’t read it at the time, as I have warned Little Mr Vadney not to send emails to my main email address, but the subject-line, “Where are you?”, was clear enough. Here’s the body of the text:

Mr Benham:

Where are you?

Happy new year!

Harold Vadney

What a little hypocrite!

By the way, both his missives came with the same crap at the bottom:

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'
Edmund Burke in 'Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents'

quis custodios ipsos custodiet
("Who's guarding the guardians?" Juvenal)

Well, he’s corrected the second quotation, but not the translation, which is still wrong. (Scott did point this out to me, but I had already worked it out for myself....)

The first is interesting: another example of the Vadney’s hypocrisy. He lies for personal gain, defames his neighbours, perjures himself, evil actions enough...and then complains precisely because (relatively) good men (and the odd woman) refrain from doing nothing! (Being “relatively good” compared with Little Mr Inadequate is not hard...!)

About Me

I am a professional translator in the combinations French>English and German>English. I hold qualifications from the University of Adelaide (BA, DipCompSc), the Australian National University (LittB), the University of Geneva (Certificat de spécialisation en linguistique), and the the UK-based Institute of Linguists (Diploma in Translation for both my language combinations). I am an implacable opponent of bullshit in all its forms.