A trial date has been set for April 14, 2008, in the matter of Harold W. Vadney v. Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Bleezarde and Bleezarde Publishing (New York State Supreme Court, Greene County, Index No. 07-0233).
I am not sure why the Vadney found it necessary to announce this date so many times, but, after the usual drivel about the action and yet another reference to Joan Ross’s “taking the Fifth” (more on which below), he invites us to
Stay tuned for the fireworks!
Well that, combined with the Vadney’s repeated references to the case in his blogs and elsewhere (including irrelevant abusive diatribes about it now mercifully deleted from the Chartered Institute of Linguists’ discussion fora), not to mention his repeated promise to publish the defendants’ depositions (which would have got him into deep shit for contempt of court), sounds like a promise to keep us posted on developments. But some pretty major developments have taken place without a word from the Vadney!
One development that he seems to have forgotten to mention, although it happened over a week ago, was that three of the four defendants, Joan Ross, Richard Bleezarde and the Bleezarde Publishing company, got summary judgment against the Vadney. In short, he has already lost his case against these three defendants. Not surprising, since it was purely vexatious and frivolous.
Now what’s that about the Fifth Amendment, How-Old? For the benefit of readers, I would point out that How-Old, on his account, threatened to prosecute the defendant for an alleged “conspiracy”, and then asked questions that were irrelevant to the matter at hand but clearly intended to gather evidence for his equally frivolous planned prosecution. It is perfectly reasonable to refuse to answer questions in such instances, and in no way constitutes an admission of guilt. (Guilt of what? one might ask. A conspiracy has to be a conspiracy to do something, and that something has to be illegal....) I can’t help wondering how many times How-Old will have taken the Fifth Amendment by the time these proceedings are over. I am tipping that, if he doesn’t avail himself of its protection, he will soon be invited to spend some time as a guest of his State Governor.
He would be very well-advised to start availing himself of it early, as follows:
Court Usher: Do you solemnly and sincerely swear that the evidence you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Vadney: I wefuse to answer that question on the gwounds that my answer may tend to incwiminate me.
Court Usher: State your full name, address and occupation.
Vadney: I wefuse to answer that question on the gwounds that my answer may tend to incwiminate me.
[...]
Defence counsel: Mr Vadney, do you run a translation business under the name of Albany TransComm International?
Vadney: I wefuse to answer that question on the gwounds that my answer may tend to incwiminate me.
[...]
Defence counsel: Mr Vadney, why exactly did you bring this suit against my client?
Vadney: I wefuse to answer that question on the gwounds that my answer may tend to incwiminate me.
[...]
There have been some other, even more bizarre, developments in this case. As we know, the Vadney was threatening to subpœna Mr Scott Horne, of Montréal, to have his deposition taken in Montréal for use in the present proceedings (as recently is 1 March 2008, he had a blog entry entitled “Shield Law No Protection / Montréal Agrees to Depose”). Well, of course, this never happened, but the ever-resourceful How-Old III has apparently subpœna’d one of the former defendants (Joan Ross), her partner (whom he recently abused as the hunched, paroxysmal, lurching "Robbie"), the town dog-catcher (!) and a certain Justice Farrell.
The stupidity of this move beggars belief. If you subpœna someone, they are your witness, and you are prevented from asking leading questions, but the other side is allowed to lead as much as it likes. So why would you subpœna someone whose evidence is likely to be hostile?
Justice Farrell is the judge against whom Vadney ran for office late last year, scoring a massive 17 votes against Farrell’s 688. Earlier, after the judge had dismissed a complaint about the Vadney and his partner’s barking dog (the plaintiff having withdrawn his suit), the Vadney lodged a totally frivolous and typically stupid 58-page complaint against the judge. The plaintiff in this dog suit was, if I am understanding this correctly, none other than John Luckacovic (New Baltimore, New York, is a very small town...), the sole remaining defendant in the present suit, which, again if I am understanding things correctly, relates to an advertisement, published in Mr Bleezarde’s newspaper, entitled “Judge with a Grudge?”, about the Vadney’s equally ill-fated earlier (2005) campaign to get himself elected Town Justice to sit alongside Justice Farrell, and making reference to the dog case and the Vadney’s subsequent complaint against the judge.
For those curious about the content of the advertisement the Vadney has complained so bitterly of, he has been kind enough to post it on his own webspace. Now tell me, if it really were so damaging to his reputation, why would he be disseminating it further? (It’s been there a couple of years at least!)
5 comments:
If you are having trouble seeing the “Judge With a Grudge?” ad on How-Old’s webspace (now why would that be?), try <http://www.rbenham.com/Vadney/NH_3Nov05_JudgeGrudge.TIF>; I have posted it on my own webspace.
Good observations, Richard.
Actually, Mr Vadney's very republication of the article smashes his claim of "defamation". This is very basic knowledge. Perhaps Mr Vadney should sign up for a civics class at the local high school. There he might also learn about the Fifth Amendment, and why perfectly innocent and eminently respectable people such as Mrs Ross might wish to invoke it. (A candidate for town justice who won't uphold the Bill of Rights? My, my.)
I am pleased to learn that most of the defendants obtained summary judgement against Mr Vadney. I hope that they will go for sanctions and any other civil or criminal penalties that may be available, for noöne should have to put up with vexatious and frivolous lawsuits.
Presumably the defendants also obtained a judgement for costs against Mr Vadney. Enforcing it may be more difficult; but even an unenforced judgement will stand for years to come (ten years, in Québec) and will help to prevent further vexatious and frivolous lawsuits by Mr Vadney.
I can certainly confirm that Mr Vadney never did serve me with a subpoena, let alone depose me here in Montréal. Once more, just "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Well, do fill me in on developments, Richard. I'm staying tuned for the fireworks.
I will post any further developments as I become aware of them. It may all be over later today (NY time), but I won’t be around to hear the news or pass it on until later, as I have a class to go to.
The sort of “fireworks” I am expecting and hoping for are likely to go unreported on Mr Vadney’s blog.
Congratulations to the (so far) successful defendants (who did indeed get costs), and good luck Mr Luckacovic!
I don't think that Mr Luckacovic will need luck; his case is absolutely solid. I'm surprised, and dismayed, that this insane lawsuit was not thrown out long ago.
By the way, I should have been happy to testify, if Mr Vadney had paid my standard daily rate and my travel expenses (in advance, of course). Why didn't he just ask nicely in the first place? Did that not occur to him?
By the way, what is going on with this case? Was the trial indeed held on April 14? I'll call the courthouse on Monday if there hasn't been any news by the end of the week.
Post a Comment