I have got hold of an archive copy of his CV (entitled “About Me”) from the 2005 election campaign, and it contains a classic example of unintentional truth-telling.
First, let me set the scene. We all know that Vadney's only genuine tertiary qualification, among all those he's claimed over the years, and despite his alleged decade or more of study at any number of high-profile universities, is a BA in German. However, we are also aware that he further claims, in many places, to have been “Director of Clinical Research” at Cathedral Health Systems. (I note in passing that Vadney took two unsuccessful lawsuits against this company!) So how does a language graduate get to be a “Director of Clinical Research”? Easy!
The answer is supplied by the Vadney himself:
I later moved to East Windsor (near Princeton) and from there forged my way into the pharmaceutical industries, and later into public health (HIV, TB and STDs), and finally into clinical research and epidemiology, finally occupying a position as Director, Clinical Research and Epidemiology with a major hospital corporation in Newark, New Jersey.
Downloaded 2/3/06 10:04 AM
Forged his way, indeed!
...which makes me wonder...
Might there have been some (unintentional) truth in some of the statements in Vadney’s blog? Well, his use of the word produced is sometimes open to interpretation:
- 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;
—Blog entry, 23 April, 2008
We'll ignore all the usual lies for the moment. The question is: What can Vadney mean by “produced” here? The word is sometimes used in the sense of laying something before someone, as evidence, say. But who has seen these alleged documents? He can't mean he produced them to the IoL, because he mentions forwarding a copy of his diploma to them, as a separate event. I can conclude he is using the word produced in its more everyday sense. “Produced” them with PhotoShop, did we, How-Old?
How not to win a court case...
Now Vadney has been a little coy about the outcome of his famous court case, in which he sued Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, the late Richard Bleezarde and Bleezarde's publishing company for alleged “defamation”. So it was left to me to announce the pleasing if predictable news: he was found to have no case against any of the defendants. Mr Vadney’s handling of the case did not help his cause. In particular, he called witnesses whose testimony could only harm his cause, including the one remaining defendant (the case against the others having been dismissed before the thing came to trial). This is what the judge had to say about Vadney’s attempts to prove the falsity of Mr Luckacovic’s assertions:
The fourth element is that the Plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, meaning substantially untrue. There has been considerable testimony about the contents of this statement, paragraph by paragraph, in some instances line by line, and in some instances inexhaustible questioning concerning specific words and/or phrases. There's been a total lack of proof or evidence that the statement, that this article, Exhibits 6 and 7, Judge with a Grudge, is false. On the contrary, the extensive examination of the witnesses in this case, particularly the Defendant, have [sic] only established and cemented the fact that the statements are in fact true, although the Defendant has no burden at this stage. So I'm finding that as a matter of law Plaintiff has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, that is substantially untrue.
The simple translation of that is that, despite his three-and-a-half days of theatrical posturing and calling huge numbers of witnesses, all Vadney managed to prove was that the “defamatory” allegations against him were in fact true (which we all knew anyway).
By the way, the judge also found (still in relation to Mr Luckacovic's Judge with a Grudge? article) that Vadney had failed to show that it was defamatory, failed to show that Mr Luckacovic had known it to be false (pretty hard when it's true, but judges have to be thorough) or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, and failed to show that it had been a substatial factor in causing economic loss (to the respective burden of proof in each case). Put simply, the case never had any merit and Vadney knew it.
What's a few oak leaves here or there?
Another interesting claim in the Vadney autobiography that has recently come to light concerns his military decorations. Consider the following:
While with the 1st IDF, I earned a number of commendations from the German military and civilian community and service medals, including the Army Commendation Medal with oak-leaf cluster.
Downloaded 2/3/06 10:04 AM
But hang on! What happened to this oak-leaf cluster? It's not mentioned in the copy of Vadney's military record sent to Mr Scott Horne. It has strangely disappeared from Vadney's more recent CVs. (For those not familiar, the oak-leaf cluster is equivalent to being issued the same medal a second (or subsequent) time.) Is this the medal which, according to Scott Waldman's article in the Times Union, was revoked? Why did it take Vadney so long to get confirmation of his medals, when it took so little time for Waldman and Horne to get their copies of Vadney's record? Did Vadney engage in some kind of threats and posturing to get the Army to remove all reference to his revoked oak-leaf cluster? And why did Vadney get demoted and leave the Army in such a hurry?
Of course, Vadney himself could answer these questions, but don't hold your breath: he is probably exhausted already from revealing so many truths in one life-time.