Join the battle against the lack-a-lifers!

While reviewing messages and updating postings it occurred to me that one of the problems that Internet trolls, their sockpuppets, their stooges and the hacks that feed them is that none of them seem to have a life.

Unlike the rest of us, they are consumed by negativity and dedicate their lives to creating negativity; they like nothing, appreciate nothing but the sounds of their own nelly-nattering.

I recently visited our illustrative examples', Internet troll Richard Benham and sockpuppet Scott Horne, web blogs just to convince myself of their absolute emptiness (of content, intellect, sensitivity to their readers--assuming they have any apart from the Benham-Horne mutual admiration club and their member emerita, Joan Ross) but--alas--I was not disappointed. Everything confirmed: they're empty (heads, hearts, souls, lives).

That's probably why, since about August 2007, Benham and Horne have waged senseless attacks on a number of persons they don't even know but--and for those in doubt, there is justice--they, Benham and Horne--have slithered away with their noses bloodied and their reputations ragged. They have become mockeries, pariahs--they've been banned, deleted, discredited, investigated (and still are being investigated), and generally disgraced. Those who have been so absolutely stupid as to have joined their idiotic game has gone the same path and rightly so.

All of that aside, and I've kept this less intellectually peppered and less scholarly because I have much to do but have a great cartoon to share. It gives meaning to the saying "one picture=1,000 words" My readers are lucky today: they get the picture and are spared the 1,000 words ;)

Cartoon Credit: Tip of the hat to Randall Munroe for posting the above cartoon on xkcd.com.
Please visit: http://virtualscratchpad.com/2008/03/life-on-internet-forums-duty-calls.html
and for a clever video: http://youvert.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/oh-the-new-medi.html

A great many people have willingly or unwilingly, deservedly or undeservedly, rightly or wrongly fallen victim to believing or thinking they have to correct every apparent error on the Internet. The problem is bigger than all of us and it's an enemy that is largely unseen, invisible and all too frequently non-self-revealing. Internet abuse and the troll population: the former is too big for just one of us and the latter is too scurrilous and sneaky. The battle for truth and reliability has to be fought by all of us who are dedicated to truth, justice and fairness. Join me!

Can of worms? Benham and Horne got problems...

What have you done Mr Benham? Mr Horne?

Looks like you've opened a can of worms! What are you going to do now?

With their last ridiculous antics our Internet troll Richard Benham and his sockpuppet Scott Horne appear to have opened a can of worms by first prematurely publishing their libels, then idiotically requesting the official custodian of military records for information on Harold Vadney's military record, receiving the official information, then actually publishing the information on their so-called blog, and then, finding that their gooses are cooked like the craven cretins that they are, they totally misinterpret what they received. They can't even read!
Get this: Benham has already admitted in one of his recent Benham-Horne dialogues, yes admitted, that he's "a bit dyslexic". A dyslexic wannabe translator. Now that takes the booby prize! What cookoo's nest did these two lunatics fall out of anyway?

But now they're really squirming and are tripping over themselves trying to talk themselves out of the pickle they've gotten themselves into ... and gotten "brilliant" Times Union journalist Scott Waldman into a bit of that same pickle.

But there is still a humorous side to all of this when you read that they allege one can enlist in the military for a particular posting. These two pinko girlscouts, Benham and Horne, are so incredibly naïve--but what do you expect from their kind. Anyone enlisting and in a position to tell the military where to post them would certainly choose someplace like San Diego, Honalulu, the Mediterranean. Sorry Mr Benham, Mr Horne; while you were out selling girlscout cookies, the military was sending men where the military wanted them or needed them. Duh!

Just visualizing the troll and the sockpuppet doing a frantic jig, clicking away at their keyboards, cutting and pasting, conferring with their New Baltimore contacts...what an infernal BUZZ that must be! Joan Ross must be fuming not to be able to take credit for her own "vitriolic character assassinations" (just quoting her).

Please forgive me if I make the impression that I'm gloating but I am seriously enjoying this moment; I've waited so long for it and worked so hard at mining the truth and now I almost feel sorry for the pitiful duo, Benham and Horne. Should I feel guilty about causing two middle-aged caricatures such pain, two wannabes who already have the "troll personality disorder" and are so angry, so deprived and who have no self-respect nor do they enjoy any self-esteem? NOT!

Mr Benham and Mr Horne, together with their hacks and stooges have brought it upon themselves because they are summarily vile and dishonest.

Is this Internet troll Benham or sockpuppet Horne at the keyboard?

We can't tell which end is doing the talking or typing!
(Photo credit: Stock Photography & Royalty Free Stock Photos at http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/earthworm.html)

More on Benham and Horne at http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/

Scott Horne Receives Confirmation

CONFIRMED!

In a letter dated February 29, 2008, the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records branch responded to sockpuppet Scott Horne's request for information on Harold Vadney's military service.

The NPRC, MPR, confirmed to Horne that Harold Vadney was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Expert Badge (highest skill level) in M-16 and Grenade.

Isn't it interesting how two rodent cowards have the cojones to criticize someone who's put his life on the line for his country.

Scott Horne, an expatriate American, who never served in any branch of national service, deserted the US and applied for Canadian citizenship in February 2007. That's fine, I'm sure we'll all agree, Canada can have him. But it makes one think: Does Canada really need immigration that badly? (We're contacting the Canadian Immigration authorities to ask if they really want someone like Horne--after they read his blog posts.) But then, on further consideration, he's gone to Québec.

Benham and Horne had previously published libelous statements alleging that Vadney's ARCOM had been revoked and Albany Times Union (a Hearst Corporation newspaper) reporter Scott Waldman used that false information in a libelous article based on information fed to him by Benham and Horne.

We had already published confirmation of these military awards on this blog (see previous posts) and we are highly gratified that justice has provided Horne with confirmation of his craven lies from official sources.

Visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/ for more information on Benham and Horne.

Grasping at straws, gasping! Internet Terrorism à la Troll and Sockpuppet!

Benham or Horne looking for something to post on their blogs.

(Copyright © 2003 Top20Fun.com at http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1359.html)

Internet troll Richard Benham and sockpuppet Scott Horne, our illustrative examples of craven Internet abusers and defamers, are scraping the bottom of their chamber pots for anything, absolutely anything to save their bloated butts. So far they've tried--pitifully unsuccessfully--to bully their victims into silence; they then concocted every genre of specious and scurrilous accusation and fraud imaginable only to be caught red-handed and subjected to investigation and censure (soon prosecution); they then attempted venomous ad hominem attacks on their courageous challenger and were promptly slapped down for what they are, cowardly rodents; they then attacked persons close to their valiant victim and were ignored (the worst thing one can do to an Internet troll or sockpuppet like Benham or Horne, respectively).

Richard Benham and Scott Horne have properly and lawfully been exposed for what they are. They are factually and objectively absolutely worse than anything they have claimed their vicitims to be. Even if one were to believe the egregious lies and speculations that Benham and Horne have so cravenly posted on their silly dialogue with each other that's masquerading as a blog. (If anyone has actually read Benham's and Horne's blog PLEASE post your comments here!)

Benahm and Horne, despite numerous demands, warnings and notices continue their Internet abuse and defamations with impunity--despite the fact that they are making such pitiful fools of themselves and entrenching themselves only more deeply in their depravity. One wonders, what do these two lunatics think they have to gain with such idiotic exhibitionism? Such a lack of intellectual input; such puerile, preadolescent babbling; such uninteresting, transparent drivel. Such abject anger! One shudders to think what sort of dark disappointment, such deep pain they are feeling to have to lash out as they do. Benham's self-righteous puffery and bantering about his linguistic skills (Yeah! those 4 years of experience. Duh! You go girl!) and he doesn't even have an address, a domicile! Then there's Horne's loss of a homeland and pitiful attempts to immerse himself and assimilate into the depressed segregation of Québec, an expatriate American turned wannabe Québecois. Now what does that tell you? Two losers trying to pull down real champions. Simply pitiful!

Horne and Benham are such losers that they don't even publish anything about themselves...is that to prevent anyone from perhaps finding out a bit more about these two imbecilic itenerate indigent Internet terrorists?

Wannabe Canadian Horne has been reported to have fed false information to the media and has recently requested and received information confirming everything that Harold Vadney has said from the start. What is the sockpuppet Horne going to do now that he sees he has absolute proof that he lied--poetic justice: Horne requested the information showing him to be a craven liar! We are musing what Mr Scott Waldman, wannabe reporter for the Albany Times Union newspaper, a Hearst Corporation publication, will have to say when Benham and Horne have to recant their accusations? Any suggestions Sir Troll, Master Sockpuppet?

Horne filed his application for Canadian citizenship in about February 2007; we will be contacting the Canadian immigration authorities shortly with a complaint and an inquiry asking if that's the best that Canada can do as far as attracting immigrants. Have you received a response from the Canadian government with respect to your application, Mr Horne?

Richard Davey Benham and Patrick Scott Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Scott Horne, expatriate US citizen and wannabe Canadian, Québecois, translator, whatever, as you will notice in the above report have a new color: YELLOW. The color of cowards.

Benham and Horne Online.

(Copyright © 2003 Top20Fun.com at http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1359.html)

Please visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/ for more information on Benham and Horne.

The Cabal of Sleaze

Hypocrisy, duplicity and unctuousness: the Cabal of Sleaze.

Watch out! You may be in for a surprise!

Credits: Elephant Dung cartoon 1 - catalog reference jkon434 at www.CartoonStock.com.

If you like this great cartoon, visit http://www.cartoonstock.com/; there are hundreds of great cartoons there for licensing.)

Here you have individuals who appear as one thing yet at very shallow depths you find something entirely different:

The pseudosophistication of Joan Ross and her hysterical confessions of the "Joan Trap"; a foul-mouthed harridan putting on airs of rural noblesse while making a Bowery whore's mouth sound pious and who gilds lilies with pig dung and calls the lies perfumed truth.

Or the pseudocrusader John Luckacovic who in his avocation works with so much smoke and mirror deception he has made it routine and can't seem to shake the illusion from reality; he's the theatrical promoter who doesn't know the difference between satire and reportage, or between tag line and alias, or truth or fiction.

Or the chameleon nomad Internet troll Richard Benham who has the presumption to critique veteran translators' skills, competence, credentials and ethics while he, Benham, scarcely has any experience at all--claims all of four (4) years of translating experience--, has been shown to be dishonest and a fraud, yet continues trolling and pointing his brown purulent finger and unctuously spouting his craven defenses of his obvious malconduct.

Or the sockpuppet patsy of benhamian pablum, Scott Horne, who can't seem to stay anywhere long, banished from practically all professional translator sites, no professional profile, no résumé, no published credentials, not even a real citizen of anywhere (he left the US and filed his application for Canadian citizenship in 2007 (see http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/articles/2007/a-look-at-canada.html)) and though his native language would be US English, pompously joins with the real Québecois referring to the French language as "our" language. Mr Horne, who can't even find a homeland, is the one who is criticizing and libeling one who wore the uniform of his country for 5 years and received high recognition for his exceptional service. Horne, foul hypocrite.

For more on Mr Benham and Mr Horne visit http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/.

What do these individuals all have in common? Themselves. And it doesn't get much commoner.

UNCLEAN HANDS as the law calls it.

These are the types that point fingers and talk but their words have no meaning, no substance.

These types tend to coagulate together like a mass of maggots on rotting offal. They call to mind a particular local individual who is constantly dripping botulism-tainted honey from his arse-kissing mouth; we'll just use his initials here because he's not really on-topic, or relevant in any sense: JW. A local property owner has described him in the following words:

" 'Let's be good neighbors.' What a sickeningly insincere, mealy-mouthed androgynous creature! Apparently he has been attending Neighborly Etiquette hands-on --or is that mouth-off?-- workshops at the Ross / Luckacovic Centre for Culture and the Performing Arts. "

I'll stop here lest dilute the realist elegance of that poignant observation. It's just too precious.

New Blog Alert

Visit and contribute to the new blog Translator Frauds and Wannabes at http://translatorfrauds.blogspot.com/.

Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne have complained bitterly that the Translator Frauds and Wannabes blog site was published but protected by "invitation only" security and that they were deprived of the knowledge of its contents. It should be noted that they were free to request access but did not.

In the interest of fairness to our illustrative examples of the Internet troll Mr Benham and his sockpuppet Mr Horne, we have temporarily removed the restriction on access to the Translator Frauds and Wannabes blog site so that Mr Benham and Mr Horne, the current star performers there, can read, copy, archive--or whatever they do--, the contents. It's only fair that they see what is reported there.

As in the past, we do invite Mr Benham and Mr Horne to make any comment they wish on the contents of the blog and, if civil and on topic, we will be pleased to allow them to be published.

We will allow unrestricted access to the blog until March 14, 2008, when the "invitation only" restriction will be reinstated.

Thank you!

How Vital is Anonymous Speech? "Taglines"? Ambush?

The above cartoon by Peter Steiner has been reproduced from page 61 of July 5, 1993 issue of The New Yorker, (Vol.69 (LXIX) no. 20)

Ironically, in the same Times Union (Albany, New York) newspaper in which "brilliant" hack Scott Waldman (a so-called journalist writing for the Times Union, a Hearst Corporation newspaper) published his fatal libels at the behest of Internet troll Richard Benham and Sockpuppet Scott Horne, an article by Andrew Keen, written for the Los Angeles Times, appears, entitled "Just How vital is anonymous speech?" (Times Union, March 7, 2008, p. A11) Now am I really surprised that the Times Union couldn't have done this short but enlightened article on its own and had to lift it from another newspaper, a competitor no less (not a Hearst newspaper, obviously)?

Mr Keen writes:

"Unfortunately, however, that promise hasn't been realized. Today, too many anonymous Internet users are posting hateful content about their neighbors, classmates and co-workers; today, online media is an increasingly shadowy, vertiginous environment in which it is becoming harder and harder to know other people's real identities.

Mr Keen cites the case of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl living in a suburb of St. Louis. In 2006, Megan, an adolescent with the usual troubles, including being plumpish, involved in a multiweek "friendship" with an Internet denizen calling itself "Josh Evans" on MySpace. After "Josh" turned against Megan and posted a comment that "the world would be better place without you," the girl hung [sic] herself. It turned out that "Josh Evans" was in fact Lori Drew, a 47-year-old neighbor and mother of a girl with whom Megan Meier had had an argument.

It's situations like Megan's that send a wake-up call to lawmakers to do something about Internet abuse and start prosecuting it.

Kudos and a resonant BRAVO! for the St. Charles County (Missouri) Board of Aldermen who passed a law making Internet harassment a misdemeanor punishable by a fine as much as $500 and 90 days in jail. That's a very specific piece of legislation. New York already has a statute that covers electronic, including Internet, harassment, calling it "aggravated harassment" and makes it a Class A criminal misdemeanor.

Mr Keene cites several important cases in his article and writes

"These cases indicate that the U.S. Supreme Court soon might need to rethink the civic value of anonymous speech in the digital age. When cowardly anonymity is souring Internet discourse, it is hard to understand how anonymous speech is vital to a free society.

Particularly poignant are Mr Keen's concluding words:

"...On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. But it is the responsibility of all of us -- parents, citizens and lawmakers -- to ensure that contemporary Web users don't behave like antisocial canines. And one way is by introducing more legislation to punish anonymous sadists whose online lies are intended to wreck the reputations and mental health of innocent Americans."

Bravo! Mr Keen. Now if only your fellow journalists would jump on your bandwagon and practice more ethical journalism and go after legislators and law enforcement and self-serving district attorneys and public prosecutors to start going after the scoundrels, perhaps we can put the cowardly anonymous sadists and those with names on ice for good!

The entire Andrew Keen article can be read online at http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=669900&category=OPINION&newsdate=3/7/2008.

In the legal actions we've brought against our own examples of scoundrels we see almost every genre of cowardice: One defendant, John Luckacovic (New Baltimore, NY), claims out of one side of a smirking deceitful face that his use of a device to confuse the public was a "tag line". A "tag line" is tantamount to a slogan, a mark that identifies one with a particular feature. O.K. But he doesn't explain why he didn't use his own name in a text he wrote on his own and even paid for to have published. He also "interviews" himself in the text and his so-called "tag line" gives the false and misleading impression that it is more than one person publishing the text. That's one form of deceit--albeit backfiring and unsuccessful.

The other form is throwing out myriad factoids as if the were well founded and true; misleading the reader into thinking that what you have to say is real, well researched and factually true. Defendant John Luckacovic (New Baltimore, NY) and his co-defendant Joan Ross (New Baltimore, NY) use this in their libels and now they're sqirming to figure out how to wiggle out of what they had printed.

This is also the deceit and misinformation method used by Internet troll Richard Benham (no credible information) and his sockpuppet Scott Horne (Montréal, PQ) when they spoon fed hack journalist Scott Waldman (Albany Times Union, a Hearst Corporation Newspaper) with their factoids. What can these pitiful creatures be thinking?

Then there are the irresponsible, unethical publishers and journalists who pick up any scum and smear it across newsprint and call it news. Some, like Scott Waldman (Albany, NY) of the Times Union rely on Internet trolls and sockpuppets like Benham and Horne, even hysterics like Jane Lamb-Ruiz, for their factoids.

Or small-town publishers like defendant Richard Bleezarde of the Bleezarde Publishing Co., Inc., publisher of the rag the News Herald (Ravena, NY) who admits he doesn't even read texts he puts in his newspaper, much less verify the identity of the writer or even check the facts in what he prints.

Yet, these very scoundrels and cowards claim that they have a right of freedom of speech (but fail to mention the attendant responsibility and obligations not to abuse that freedom; see the New York State Constitution) and regrettably have the victim public's attention. Such abuse can't and won't go unpunished.

It's unfortunate that some Internet scoundrels are so cowardly and gutless that they choose to post their venom anonymously (for example, Mr Richard Benham and his cowing alias, "DINA" on the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forum). Sadly, too, Yahoo!Geocities allows Benham to continue to post his crapola on his website but other, more responsible ISPs and site owners have banned Benham (Yahoo! even reported that Benham had forged his e-mail address) and removed his site. Sockpuppet Scott Horne works better as a remora, attaching to bottom-feeder Benham and crapping where Benham craps. But like most Internet abusers, Internet trolls, sockpuppets, stooges and hacks, they all get prosecuted even if they think they can hide behind aliases, pseudo-anonymity. Just like the nefarious Lori Drew found she couldn't hide behind a fake name like "Josh Evans" and escape punishment, our examples of Internet criminals will soon face the music ... a very special "Requiem for the Internet coward".

Shield Law No Protection / Montréal Agrees to Depose

We apologize for the several days we have not updated this blog but we've been working hard on several important legal issues.
As we have reported in previous blogs, the trial in the libel action we brought against defendants Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Bleezarde, Bleezarde Publishing Co., Inc. (publishers of the News Herald newspaper) is still calendared for April 14, 2008. Defendants asked us to agree to an adjournment, which we amicably consented to, but the the judge said "No way, José!" Defendants' attorneys have been very sloppy and thank G*d we have a no-nonsense judge on the case who doesn't put up with any lawyer crapola.

In the meantime, we are preparing our case against several individuals and a newspaper involved in the publishing of what Mr Scott Horne, in his benighted state, referred to as a "brilliant" journalistic piece by Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union, a Hearst Corporation newspaper, in which Waldman uses information obtained from Internet troll Richard Benham and his sockpuppet Scott Horne--despite the fact that Waldman was warned that the information was false or unverified and to publish it at his own (the Times Union's) risk and hazard.

How does that apply to Internet abuse? You may well ask. Well, the Times Union is part of a larger rag monger, the Hearst Corportation, and apparently stories written in the Times Union also get distributed to smaller papers and Waldman's article, if you've read Benham's and Horne's postings on their blogs, was also posted on the Internet. Several other papers picked up the story and posted it on the Internet. Very bad for them! False facts, defamatory facts, unchecked facts, facts published despite knowledge of their falsity or information that they are false or unverified = libel on its face. Big jury awards are looming on the horizon!

Some of our readers may think: Well freedom of the press...? No. That one won't work here. Case law shows this. Newspapers don't enjoy total protection. It's still libel. And Times v. Sullivan, Milkowitz, Immuno, Gertz and all of the daughter cases based on those milestones won't help either. We've studied past cases brought against the New York Times and against Hearst Corporation in the past and which won and didn't have half the ammo we've collected. Sure, Hearst will put up a pro forma defense and try to defend Waldman's stupidity but in the end we expect that they'll have to cave to justice. Their shareholders won't want the cat to hit the fan and get the publicity.

But what about the Shield Laws? There is no federal shield law in the United States, and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source" law. (For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws) Thus, a shield law may provide a privilege (viz. protection) to a reporter pursuant to which the reporter cannot be forced by subpoena or other court order to testify about information contained in a news story and/or the source of that information. It would not be a good thing to bet the farm on this one. Not entirely so, Mabel!

New York is known as a “Shield Law” state for its law that shields the press from compelled disclosure of news sources and other confidential information and from compelled disclosure of non-confidential information such as notes or outtakes. The privilege provided under the shield law not to disclose sources is “absolute,” i.e., non-defeasible under any circumstances. The privilege not to disclose notes and outtakes, on the other hand, is “qualified,” i.e., defeasible when the information sought is (1) highly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to a party’s claim or defense, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. For the landmark case on privilege see U.S. v. Cutler 1991 10CIR 1188 948 F.2d 691 and for the landmark case on overriding press privilege, see Krase v. Graco Children Products Inc. Careful, defendants!

We already know Waldman's sources--Benham and Horne admit to sending out [doctored] press kits and other fraudulent or illegally obtained information and have not been shy about publishing multiple admissions of their defamations--and have identified the locals who were/are involved, so half our work is done!

But note this: After Cutler v US, it appeared that reporters could protect their unpublished notes and outtakes only in New York’s state courts, not in its federal courts. If a reporter’s privilege existed in New York federal court at all, Cutler indicated that the three-prong press disclosure test would be applied so tepidly as to make the privilege doctrine a virtual dead letter. (see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26).

We won't bore our readers with a lengthy discussion of the ramifications and the benefit of these observations and how they help our case but, rest assured, the next round of lawsuits will be in Federal Court and not in New York State Supreme Court for obvious reasons.

More Good News!

The Superior Court of Québec, Montréal Division, has agreed to allow us to depose a certain Internet abuser and defamer in Montréal! The court will even provide examination room and will arrange for a court stenographer! What great service! The great thing about this is that if the sockpuppet doesn't show up, we have him picked up and arrested. That's only the half of the story. Since we'll be deposing him as a non-party, a third party, we don't have to notify defendants' attorneys and don't have to include them in the deposition. So, SURPRISE! This will be an excellent opportunity to develop winning tactics and overcome a certain someone's taking the Fifth Amendment protections to avoid answering deposition questions and we won't be jeopardizing our access to that certain someone by compelling her to answer our questions over her Fifth Amendment trick. One more loss for defendants. Too bad. We won't mention any names here because the suspense will be the icing on the cake.

Knock, knock ...

Who's there? Is it the
sheriff, the police, the bailiff, the process server, grandma? Guess ... or open the door and ... "You've been served!"

Surprised?

You shouldn't be!

Now you can bet the farm that certain Internet abusers and certain defamers and some idiotic journalists and their employers are going to have second thoughts in future before they play loose and easy with others' reputations and with their speech privileges and the law.

Stay tuned for news as it breaks!

Special thanks to the Superior Court of Québec, Montréal Division, Civil Part

(http://www.cba.org/quebec/Main/accueil/)