Please try not to puke. This is a picture of the Vadney from his 2007 election campaign for the post of Town Justice of New Baltimore. You will be relieved to read that I don’t want you to look at his face. I would like rather to draw your attention to the flag in the background. It’s a 13-star American flag from the days of the War of Independence. So you would think the Wad was trying to tell us something about his attitude to Britain with this picture, wouldn’t you? Well, probably he is, but like most information emanating from the Vadney, the message of this picture is totally false. At best, his attitude to Britain is ambivalent. Vadney doesn’t look down on Britain; rather, he aspires to be British himself. Remember, he claimed (falsely, of course) to be a Member of the Institute of Linguists (MIL) and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (FRSA), both august British institutions. And he claimed to have attended, among many other institutions, the University College of London. That would have been more impressive if he had got the name right: it is simply University College, London.
Vadney is a Merkin, Vadney is a thief!
And then there is the sycophantic puff piece in the Schenectady Daily Gazette (24 April 1998, p. B-11), in which the pseudo-journalist Cheryl Clark describes Vadney making “a little pot of chamomile tea” and serving it on a “silver tray”. And, of course, speaking “with a cultured European tinge that belies his Albany upbringing”: in plain language, a fake English accent. How quaint!
So, for something novel, let’s see how the Vadney would fare in the British legal system. As I have mentioned, we know that the Vadney claimed, on his ProZ.com and TranslatorsCafe.com profiles, as well as his own commercial website, to have qualifications he lacked. I also know that one UK agency, until relatively recently when they found out about his fraudulent claims, hired the Vadney on a regular basis. So where does this put him legally?
Also, feigned qualification cases, to my knowledge, have been brought/prosecuted - with the higher criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt - only under the UK Theft Act 1968. The gen. category is obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. The spec. count is s. 16(2)c)-> a deception i.e. as to qualifications allowing a person to be given an 'opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration'. See MPC v. Charles; R. v. Lambie; and esp. R. v. Callender (1992)- an unqualified book-keeper pretending to be a Chartered Accountant.
post by Maurice, a UK solicitor.
So, in simple terms: Vadney is a thief under English law! (Section 16 of the UK Theft Act 1968 has now been replaced by Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, which came into effect on 15 January 2007. Vadney’s deceptions took place both before and after this date; so he is a fraud (in the UK legal sense) as well as thief! Note that there is no longer a requirement to have actually made a gain or caused someone a loss; intention suffices. And the maximum penalty is 10 years.) Wouldn’t it be nice to see him locked up where he belongs?
A day to remember
22 August 2007. The day Scott Waldman’s article about the Vadney and his lies finally appeared in the Albany Times Union. On the top of the front page of the D (Capital Region) section, with the headline “Candidate lists false credentials”, and a picture of the Vadney’s grotesquely grinning countenance (cropped from the same picture as is shown on this page, by the looks of it.) The subtitle was “Harold W. Vadney III, running for New Baltimore town justice, claimed degrees, memberships he doesn’t have”. There was also a teaser on the very front page of the paper. The Vadney was finally exposed as a fraud, not just on an obscure forum for translators, but in the mainstream press on his home turf!
This magnificent achievement was the culmination of a lot of very hard work behind the scenes by a lot of people I can’t name due to the Vadney’s practice of harassing people who disclose inconvenient truths about him with vexatious and frivolous lawsuits. A bit late for Scott Waldman and the Times Union, though! The limitations period is only one year. My thanks and congratulations go to all those people who helped, and to Scott Waldman and his publisher for having the guts to run that excellent story.