David Drew Howe caught "cheating" at Wikipedia
StephenP
David Howe has been using multiple IDs at Wikipedia in order to
advance his claim there. His "official" login was Kingofmann but had
been using Lazydown and Theisles to edit articles in a favourable
light.
I will await what actions Wikipedia takes in the circumstances. The
overriding concern of Wikipedia is neutrality and covert promotion of
a particular cause goes against that founding principle.
Yours aye
Stephen
Greg
Here's the place to prove what you just said.
Nathaniel Taylor
<cdc96c1b-c4b3-4fbe...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <scot...@comcast.net> wrote:
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann
The technical function 'checkuser' is an IP check by wikipedia editors
with special administrative privileges, and is only invoked when a
formal complaint seems to warrant it. The violation of the 'assumption
of good faith' and strictures against conflict of interest and
partisanship are self-evident when one reads the discussion pages and
history of contributions by the confirmed sockpuppets listed at the
above URL. Remember Howe used a sockpuppet when he debuted his claim to
be 'Prince of Mann' on a.t.r. in October 2006; he also appears to have
used sockpuppets (and was disciplined for it) when defending a wikipedia
page on the micronation of 'Vikesland' which was deleted for absurdity
back in fall 2006 just before he started advancing his Manx claim.
One thing that is interesting is his continued shrill and high-handed
denials of wrongdoing on Wikipedia (and his frequent use of the word
'libel' to describe what others say about his claims).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Greg
> In article
> <cdc96c1b-c4b3-4fbe-9197-6b8ff6072...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for that Nat. But this is what I'm referring to:
(but it has been confirmed that
David Howe has been using multiple IDs at Wikipedia in order to
advance his claim there. His "official" login was Kingofmann but had
been using Lazydown and Theisles to edit articles in a favourable
light. )
Nathaniel Taylor
<e9d930cf-fbae-42a1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <scot...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Thanks for that Nat. But this is what I'm referring to:
>
> > but it has been confirmed that
> > David Howe has been using multiple IDs at Wikipedia in order to
> > advance his claim there. His "official" login was Kingofmann but had
> > been using Lazydown and Theisles to edit articles in a favourable
> > light.
What part of Stephen's accurate summary of the situation is not
self-evident in Wikipedia itself? Go read the relevant pages, all
linked from the URL I just gave you, especially the chronological
contribution histories of Howe's proved alter egos.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Greg
>
> Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Thanks for that Nat. But this is what I'm referring to:
>
> > > but it has been confirmed that
> > > David Howe has been using multiple IDs at Wikipedia in order to
> > > advance his claim there. His "official" login was Kingofmann but had
> > > been using Lazydown and Theisles to edit articles in a favourable
> > > light.
>
> What part of Stephen's accurate summary of the situation is not
> self-evident in Wikipedia itself? Go read the relevant pages, all
> linked from the URL I just gave you, especially the chronological
> contribution histories of Howe's proved alter egos.
>
> Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
None of those usernames refer to Howe specifically, so I'm not sure
how Stephen can say that these contributors are indeed Howe... Who
knows who they are?
Furthermore there is no explaianation of a "sock puppet" either.
glu...@gmail.com
Oh please.
1. The Wikipedia user 'Kingofmann' has on many occasions declared
himself to be David Howe. Look up his list of contributions
('contribs'), click on the date or on the word 'diff' and you will see
many statements that he is David Howe. Identifying himself as David
Howe, 'Kingofmann' requested protection by the Wikipedia authorities
from what he called 'libel' and invasion of privacy in the article
about him (and associated talk page). Now his appeals for Wikipedia
authority intervention are likely to backfire.
2. If you need further definitions, you can look up Wikipedia's
definition of a sockpuppet on ... Wikipedia.
[sorry for the g00gle post under a different user: I'm somewhere else
right now and don't have the same Usenet client on this laptop (this
doesn't count as sockpuppetry btw)]
--
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> Oh please.
>
> 1. The Wikipedia user 'Kingofmann' has on many occasions declared
> himself to be David Howe. Look up his list of contributions
> ('contribs'), click on the date or on the word 'diff' and you will see
> many statements that he is David Howe. Identifying himself as David
> Howe, 'Kingofmann' requested protection by the Wikipedia authorities
> from what he called 'libel' and invasion of privacy in the article
> about him (and associated talk page). Now his appeals for Wikipedia
> authority intervention are likely to backfire.
Laughably, Howe (who has just been unblocked but is presumably living
on borrowed wiki-time) has now alleged that other posts on the
internet constituting "admissions" are the creations of sockpuppets of
*other people* trying to discredit him.
This desperate attempt to deflect attention has been made
notwithstanding:
(a) the fact that these posts often contain criticism of the very
persons Howe accuses of making them;
(b) the fact that these posts have attracted the criticism of those
Howe accuses of making them;
(c) the fact that these posts have contained considerable amounts of
personal information, including private photographs, tendered for the
very purpose of showing to doubters that the poster was Howe;
(d) the fact that these posts have each been edited away as soon as
public attention was drawn to them - hardly the action of someone
wishing to expose Howe to ridicule or worse;
(e) the fact that Howe has a long history of using fake IDs, running
schemes, denying all of the foregoing etc - as demonstrated amply in
the current farce playing out on Wikipedia.
This morning, he posted another appeal in his attempt to get the wiki-
spotlight turned off him, and he alleges inter alia that on my website
I claim he married and fathered a son at age 12.
I cannot think of a better example of Howe's determined efforts to lie
and to distort and misrepresent criticism than this; it is contained
in a plea wherein he seeks to justify both the use of fake IDs and
lying about his use of them when challenged.
Howe's claim:
*******"Mr. Reading's opinion [sic] are rather ridiculous any way. If
you believe him I was previously married and fathered a child in 1982
at the ripe old age of 12."******** 14 January 2008, 20.47.
The relevant part of my website:
*******"Amongst the sources cited for the family details Howe provides
on his website is 'Ancestry World Tree' at www.ancestry.com - a patron-
submitted collection of family trees.
A review of this source suggests a prior marriage for Howe - to a
Patricia Schuggs - and an older child, a son named Thaddius:
http://awtc.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:615732&id=I2781
It also states that Howe's date of birth is 30 September 1969, which
is accordance with the details provided on his myspace page (above).
Given that the submitted material on Ancestry World Tree is only as
reliable as its provider, it is unclear whether these details are
accurate. "*********
http://www.unrealroyal.com/page_1198480719083.html
How anyone can tell so many lies and expect to be believed about
anything is beyond me.
MA-R
(or perhaps someone pretending to be me)
glu...@gmail.com
> Laughably, Howe (who has just been unblocked but is presumably living
> on borrowed wiki-time) has now alleged that other posts on the
> internet constituting "admissions" are the creations of sockpuppets of
> *other people* trying to discredit him.
>
> This desperate attempt to deflect attention has been made
> notwithstanding:
<...>
> (e) the fact that Howe has a long history of using fake IDs, running
> schemes, denying all of the foregoing etc - as demonstrated amply in
> the current farce playing out on Wikipedia.
>
> This morning, he posted another appeal in his attempt to get the wiki-
> spotlight turned off him, and he alleges inter alia that on my website
> I claim he married and fathered a son at age 12.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Final...
<...>
This is a typical piece of Howe's prose and is very similar,
rhetorically, to some of his posts on bullshido.net back in December
04. The bullshido.net poster he singles out in this current appeal is
the one who declared himself to be unmoved by Howe's alleged remorse
for earlier fraudulent activity in the martial arts sphere. Howe is
very good at trying to kill various birds with one stone, even when it
is he who is up against the wall. You have to admit he has worked
very hard on this whole project over several weeks this winter. He
gives ground only by the inch, and continues to try to insinuate his
own importance (e.g. describing himself here as a 'minor celebrity').
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> Laughably, Howe (who has just been unblocked but is presumably living
> on borrowed wiki-time) has now alleged that other posts on the
> internet constituting "admissions" are the creations of sockpuppets of
> *other people* trying to discredit him.
This claim has now been 'edited away' (unsurprisingly) by Howe, but it
remains visible here, together with his original untruth about the
content on my website:
MA-R
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's not really an "oh please" about it Nat. If these things are
going to be posted as fact, well then, make sure the facts are are
spelled out. Try and look at this like 'a record'... The entire
dialouge will kake very interesting reading for future reference. So,
since you guys have trouble telling the story, you must be reminded to
translate some of the more obscure parts of it.
Now. IS Howe using all of those ID's or does he have people working
with him? and if so, who are they?
StephenP
Examiner in response to article written by Richard Allen.
Original Article;
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/columns/Say-goodbye-Liz-and-God.3641663.jp
Michael's letter;
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/your-letters/Examiner-January-15-2008.3671958.jp
As you can see Richard Allen's main point of the article is to
question the usefulness of a monarchy in modern times. He uses Howe
as a handy stick with which to beat the status quo.
I wonder as to Howe's intellectual powers because he seemed to
consider the article as an endorsement of his claim. He, in his
sockpuppet persona of Lazydown, added some cherry picked sentences
that reflected well upon Howe and totally missed the final paragraph
that referred to his claims as a "delusion". Wikipedia requires that
in such cases a citation is required and so a link to the article was
included in the references section. I presume Howe was hoping that
nobody would bother to read the article for themselves or, more
likely, a) he had not read the whole thing himself or b) he failed to
understand it.
If Howe has any common sense left it is time for him to drop the
claim, delete the website and try to return to obscurity. The
spotlight is well and truly upon him and it is unlikely to move away
in the near future. Howe has described himself as a minor celebrity
and even tried to equate himself with the Queen and Prince Of Wales.
If he retains that particular mind set he may try to continue the
charade. If so it is not only his reputation, such as it is, that
will suffer but his business may be adversely affected as well.
Yours aye
Stephen
Nathaniel Taylor
<5c6b6f35-5525-4d65...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
It is still unclear whether Howe is a self-believing fantasist who also
happens to have a predeliction for fraud and is trying to make money out
of his own convictions, or a professional fraud who simply adopted a
fantasist persona as a moneymaking scheme. I expect his claims to be
flushed from Wikipedia in due course (as those of the soi-disant 'Earl
of Stirling,' also an American, were last year); Howe's main Wikipedia
entry (written largely by himself under pseudonyms in violation of
Wikipedia rules) has been earmarked for deletion and 'votes' are being
taken.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> It is still unclear whether Howe is a self-believing fantasist who also
> happens to have a predeliction for fraud and is trying to make money out
> of his own convictions, or a professional fraud who simply adopted a
> fantasist persona as a moneymaking scheme. I expect his claims to be
> flushed from Wikipedia in due course (as those of the soi-disant 'Earl
> of Stirling,' also an American, were last year); Howe's main Wikipedia
> entry (written largely by himself under pseudonyms in violation of
> Wikipedia rules) has been earmarked for deletion and 'votes' are being
> taken.
"Flushed" - what an appropriate choice of words. I think a life-time
ban may be anticipated at this rate of self-destruction.
It see from Wikipedia that Howe has now amended his FAQ on the
"official site". These now include a paragraph reading:
"Q) Was I talking to the real King David of Mann in the chat room /
forum I was recently in?
"A) No. Anyone can create an account name and claim to be someone they
are not. There have been several incidents of impersonation of King
David by persons both well intentioned, and not so well intentioned.
King David does not participate in any chat room or forum discussions.
King David's official information site as well as the official myspace
page are his sole means of Internet communications. "
www.royaltyofman.com as at 16 January 2008 (FAQ page)
This means one of two things. Either:
(a) The person who posted to google groups in 2006 as David Drew Howe
was an impostor. This same person, using the same email address used
to post on google groups, consequently initiated and carried on for
some time an unsolicited email correspondence with me into 2007. And
this same person emailed me a couple of months ago, using the same
email address, threatening me with libel action. David Drew Howe is
now stating that this person is an impostor.
OR
(b) David Drew Howe is a liar.
Howe/the impostor pretending to be Howe posted a similar allegation on
the page about his Wikipedia appeal:
although it was speedily withdrawn by Howe/the impostor pretending to
be Howe.
So - this either means that Howe is desperately making up stories to
explain away all the confessions and other admissions of fraud and
deceit that he has made in the past and is lying his head off about
his forum posts and his Wikipedia activities - or an impostor
pretending to be Howe has made allegations that impostors are
pretending to be Howe and has sent me a fake email about libel
claims...
MA-R
Turenne
>
> So - this either means that Howe is desperately making up stories to
> explain away all the confessions and other admissions of fraud and
> deceit that he has made in the past and is lying his head off about
> his forum posts and his Wikipedia activities - or an impostor
> pretending to be Howe has made allegations that impostors are
> pretending to be Howe and has sent me a fake email about libel
> claims...
OR a particularly nasty case of schizophrenia....
Richard L
Nathaniel Taylor
<3959d108-0554-45e0...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Ah. I was rather expecting that Howe would now deny that *any* of the
Wikipedia personalities are his (including the one who, from the start,
only posted to Wikipedia demanding administrative intervention, and
claiming to be Howe himself). This was the only way for him to seek to
weasel out of the fact that all the Wikipedia accounts acting pro-Howe
have been proved on technical grounds to be from the same source
(undeniably Howe).
The originator of the claim is certainly the same as the poster of all
the stuff online. Everything Howe has ever written or posted--on his
website(s), bullshido.net, Usenet, or Wikipedia--has a consistent
rhetorical ring to it. The only way Howe can deny the postings, etc.,
is to claim that his own websites and indeed the claim itself are all
the work of a specific imposter; unfortunately he cannot do so since he
has been videotaped talking about the claim (even though the photograph
of him in the nice suit is an obvious photoshop job).
I'm still not sure that there are grounds for a civil or criminal
complaint here, but he is certainly indicted by the high court of common
sense.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Greg
> On Jan 17, 1:50 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is still unclear whether Howe is a self-believing fantasist who also
> > happens to have a predeliction for fraud and is trying to make money out
> > of his own convictions, or a professional fraud who simply adopted a
> > fantasist persona as a moneymaking scheme. I expect his claims to be
> > flushed from Wikipedia in due course (as those of the soi-disant 'Earl
> > of Stirling,' also an American, were last year); Howe's main Wikipedia
> > entry (written largely by himself under pseudonyms in violation of
> > Wikipedia rules) has been earmarked for deletion and 'votes' are being
> > taken.
>
> "Flushed" - what an appropriate choice of words. I think a life-time
> ban may be anticipated at this rate of self-destruction.
>
> It see from Wikipedia that Howe has now amended his FAQ on the
> "official site". These now include a paragraph reading:
>
> "Q) Was I talking to the real King David of Mann in the chat room /
> forum I was recently in?
>
> "A) No. Anyone can create an account name and claim to be someone they
> are not. There have been several incidents of impersonation of King
> David by persons both well intentioned, and not so well intentioned.
> King David does not participate in any chat room or forum discussions.
> King David's official information site as well as the official myspace
> page are his sole means of Internet communications. "
>
>
> This means one of two things. Either:
>
> (a) The person who posted to google groups in 2006 as David Drew Howe
> was an impostor. This same person, using the same email address used
> to post on google groups, consequently initiated and carried on for
> some time an unsolicited email correspondence with me into 2007. And
> this same person emailed me a couple of months ago, using the same
> email address, threatening me with libel action. David Drew Howe is
> now stating that this person is an impostor.
>
> OR
>
> (b) David Drew Howe is a liar.
>
> Howe/the impostor pretending to be Howe posted a similar allegation on
> the page about his Wikipedia appeal:
>
>
> although it was speedily withdrawn by Howe/the impostor pretending to
> be Howe.
>
> So - this either means that Howe is desperately making up stories to
> explain away all the confessions and other admissions of fraud and
> deceit that he has made in the past and is lying his head off about
> his forum posts and his Wikipedia activities - or an impostor
> pretending to be Howe has made allegations that impostors are
> pretending to be Howe and has sent me a fake email about libel
> claims...
>
> MA-R
This also means that there is most likely somebody working with Howe
that may be responsible for some of the editing on Wikipedia etc etc,
so, how 'bout some of those ID's?
mj...@btinternet.com
Recte: a couple of *weeks* ago. It just seems like for ever.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
I see that the article on David Drew Howe has now been deleted by the
Wiki Powers That Be, and that the case has been formally accepted by
the Arbitration panel to see what lessons can be learned and what
sanctions might be appropriate; his identified sock-puppets have
already been named, shamed and blocked.
Amusingly, he had even used one of them to give 'evidence' to the
Arbitration panel in support of himself!
It seems Howe bit off more than he could chew, attempting a third
round with Wikipedia - he previously tried in October 2006 to insert
articles about the 'principality of Vikesland' and references to
himself as 'Duke of Antwerp', and in March 2007 he first tried to
insert the rubbish about himself as 'King of Man'. I make that Howe
0, Wikipedia 3.
Given the extraordinary preponderence of evidence against him this
time, I predict he won't even attempt to defend his case.
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.unrealroyal.com
StephenP
charitable giving;
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.htm?StoryID=69992
The article concluded with;
"How should a prudent potential client evaluate the potential benefit
to a charity that Howe favors? My recommendation is: Very carefully!"
Michael, busy as ever, has written to the editor of the FNP. It can
be read at;
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_letters.htm?runDate=01/20/08
Howe does not seem to relish any sort of critical analysis of his
claims. I wonder how he will react to this latest mention. He has,
for now at least, had a set back at Wikipedia so we may have to look
elsewhere for his next attempt at disinformation.
Yours aye
Stephen
StephenP
> Howe'slocal paper has mentioned him again in a column about
> charitable giving;
>
> http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.h...
>
> The article concluded with;
>
> "How should a prudent potential client evaluate the potential benefit
>
> Michael, busy as ever, has written to the editor of the FNP. It can
> be read at;
>
>
> Howedoes not seem to relish any sort of critical analysis of his
> claims. I wonder how he will react to this latest mention. He has,
> for now at least, had a set back at Wikipedia so we may have to look
> elsewhere for his next attempt at disinformation.
>
> Yours aye
>
> Stephen
David Howe has responded to Michael's letter at:
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_comments.htm?StoryID=70486#postComments
Howe still can't address the main issues and is still fixated upon the
London Gazette's "recognition" of his claims.
Yours aye
Stephen
mj...@btinternet.com
> On 20 Jan, 16:00, StephenP <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Howe'slocal paper has mentioned him again in a column about
> > charitable giving;
>
> >http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.h...
>
> > The article concluded with;
>
> > "How should a prudent potential client evaluate the potential benefit
> > to a charity thatHowefavors? My recommendation is: Very carefully!"
>
> > Michael, busy as ever, has written to the editor of the FNP. It can
> > be read at;
>
> >http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_letters.htm...
>
> > Howedoes not seem to relish any sort of critical analysis of his
> > claims. I wonder how he will react to this latest mention. He has,
> > for now at least, had a set back at Wikipedia so we may have to look
> > elsewhere for his next attempt at disinformation.
>
> > Yours aye
>
> > Stephen
>
> David Howe has responded to Michael's letter at:
>
>
> Howe still can't address the main issues and is still fixated upon the
> London Gazette's "recognition" of his claims.
I suspect there is more "won't" than "can't" in this case.
It is interesting to see what he says about Noble Titles' role in all
this:
"[I] feel that anyone who wants a noble title should be able to have
one. Therefore, I have contracted with a British company and a U.K.
solicitor (lawyer) to ensure that these transactions comply with all
U.K. Laws and U.K. trading standards."
Note the word "contracted" and the assertion that this enterprise is
fully compliant with UK trading standards requirements.
MA-R
Turenne
"[I] feel that anyone who wants a noble title should be able to have
one. Therefore, I have contracted with a British company and a U.K.
solicitor (lawyer) to ensure that these transactions comply with all
U.K. Laws and U.K. trading standards."
Using that reasoning; anyone in the US who wishes to call themselves
senator, congressman or judge should simply do so after paying the
appropriate fee to the relevant dodgy company selling such
appelations. It occurs to me that the Americans would be the first to
cry 'foul!' if an Englishman were to call himself Senator John Smith
of North Dakota, having paid £50,000 for the right to do so!
Richard L
Nathaniel Taylor
<2f952439-0f54-4f0d...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Turenne <richard....@virgin.net> wrote:
Well, isn't it true that anyone who 'wants a title' *can* have one,
except in jurisdictions where the use of titles is restricted to those
who have purchased or inherited or been granted by government the right
to use a title? Anywhere else, all one has to do is choose one and
begin to use it, as Howe himself knows from his 'Duke of Antwerp' days.
Of course the sale, by a non-UK citizen to another non-UK citizen,
taking place outside the UK, of a valueless intangible commodity, would
presumably comply with all UK laws and trading standards, since there
are presumably no laws or trading standards which would apply to it.
But what if the buyer is a UK citizen?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Nathaniel Taylor
<nltaylor-352DB9...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
To take this further, what laws govern the *use* of titles (As opposed
to the sale of titles: these are two separate issues.)
Let's start with something like the Howe scenario: postulate a US
Citizen, in the US, assuming real or apparently real UK titles. There
is nothing intrinsically actionable under US law in a US person, in the
US, calling himself the 'King of Man', I suppose. Is there anything
intrinisically actionable under UK law in such a case, if the US man is
not in the UK? What if he is not in the UK but is essentially
communicating within the UK (for example, by setting up a business via a
UK broker)?
Would the situation be different if he called himself 'Earl of Wessex'
(i.e. a title uniquely belonging to a specific UK citizen, its use
presumably protected in the UK)? Or would it only be actionable if
appeared that he was not just using a title, but attempting to
impersonate the actual Earl of Wessex? Or would any use of the title
amount legally to impersonation and therefore be actionable?
Now, with the title 'King of Man', if it can be said that the title
'King of Man' *belongs to* the Queen as 'Lord of Man' (that is, because
the titles were used interchangeably in the 14th - 17th centuries to
refer to the same persons and entity), even if she doesn't use the
specific style, could Howe be prosecuted for impersonating the queen, if
he were to set foot in the UK and attempt to use the title 'King of Man'
there? Impersonation of the sovereign might be covered under separate
statutes or customs in addition to those dealing with impersonation of
another private individual?
There are just some interesting issues here, even leaving aside all the
legal issues around making up titles to sell to people.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Greg
Well, I doubt that any American would cry "foul"! What about Queen
Latifah? She's rich, she's beautiful, and she is known the world over
as "Queen".. I haven't heard the complaints from the UK, or anybody
else.
If I want to change my name to Senator Josephsomething, I can do
that!
If sonebody wants to pay in excess of $50,000 to BE A SCOTTISH BARON -
they can do that too! And!... get a pretty picture for the wall to
boot! It has the same value as anything that's purchased in the name
of Royalty: ZIP -IDDY- DOO - DAH, NILL, N-O-N-E... Anybody who spends
that much money on so stupid an enterprise SHOULD walk into the finest
restaruant in town, and demand to ba called: Lord Whosawhat'sit of
"There".
Might as well get your money's worth.
See what you guys have stirred up, by assisting in the pretentions?
And people of real means (who are very good people) and the history
that they represent continue to get sucked into the whirlpool of
oblivion.
David Drew Howe is a blip. Get over it. Do some good.
He's legal. He's gotchya.
StephenP
>
> Well, I doubt that any American would cry "foul"! What about Queen
> Latifah? She's rich, she's beautiful, and she is known the world over
> as "Queen".. I haven't heard the complaints from the UK, or anybody
> else.
> If I want to change my name to Senator Josephsomething, I can do
> that!
> If sonebody wants to pay in excess of $50,000 to BE A SCOTTISH BARON -
> they can do that too! And!... get a pretty picture for the wall to
> boot! It has the same value as anything that's purchased in the name
> of Royalty: ZIP -IDDY- DOO - DAH, NILL, N-O-N-E... Anybody who spends
> that much money on so stupid an enterprise SHOULD walk into the finest
> restaruant in town, and demand to ba called: Lord Whosawhat'sit of
> "There".
>
> Might as well get your money's worth.
>
> See what you guys have stirred up, by assisting in the pretentions?
> And people of real means (who are very good people) and the history
> that they represent continue to get sucked into the whirlpool of
> oblivion.
> David Drew Howe is a blip. Get over it. Do some good.
>
> He's legal. He's gotchya.
Another erudite and succinct post by Greg? Just a couple of thoughts;
Queen Latifah - Is she actually claiming to be a sovereign of a
country or is it a stage name? There is a world of difference between
the two.
Scottish Feudal Barons - I did wonder how long it would take for that
particular fixation to appear.
David Drew Howe - Are we to take it that Greg is now convinced of the
validity of Howe's claims? I am sure that Howe will be delighted as
now it means that his supporters have doubled in number to two.
Yours aye
Stephen
Turenne
>Queen Latifah - Is she actually claiming to be a sovereign of a
>country or is it a stage name? There is a world of difference between
>the two.
Queen Latifah obtained her 'title' from the same source as Count
Basie, Earl Hines, Lord Sutch, Duke Ellington and Prince.
Richard L
Nathaniel Taylor
<b77f929c-eb6c-4c2a...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Turenne <richard....@virgin.net> wrote:
And indeed the legitimate fount of such titles in the US is . . . one's
self, or one's marketing agent, or one's public. All our jazz & pop
royalty are thoroughly legitimate.
This is Greg's point, for all its artlessness: Within the US Howe is
perfectly within his rights to claim whatever name or title he wishes,
whether it is one which happens to belong to someone else in another
country, or not. In this respect, Howe is 'legal'. My detailed
questions posted upthread about whether Howe could be found criminally
liable *within the UK* if he were actually there, impersonating the
sovereign of Man (who is the queen), still stand, though: they are not
rhetorical questions and I would like to know the answer.
Aside from the identity question (Howe's own use of a title for
himself), the question of precisely how Howe is not 'legal' by offering
to sell titles to other people, is still very much open. Insofar as
any US citizen can call himself what he wishes, effectively granting
himself any title (as Howe himself has done), means that Howe's
commodity (fake titles) is valueless.
I think the sale of titles under false pretenses (i.e. the claims that
the things being sold have value, and that Howe is uniquely empowered to
create and/or sell them) would probably be considered criminally
actionable in US federal courts as 'wire fraud'. The statute: 18 USC SS
1343, formally titled 'Fraud by wire, radio or television', is here --
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html
Note that the quaint steampunk-era term 'wire fraud' is universally
recognized as encompassing interstate or international commerce by means
of the Internet, as well as radio and tv broadcasting, even if the 'wire
signals' are via radio signal diffusion or other wireless networks.
Note also that this statute encompasses the intent to defraud, not just
the actual successful culmination of fraudulent transactions. So I
guess that answers my earlier question about Howe's potential exposure
even if he has not yet sold any titles.
Here is the United States Department of Justice's resource page on
guidelines for seeking criminal complaints in cases of wire fraud:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/43mcrm.htm
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
mj...@btinternet.com
> In article
> <b77f929c-eb6c-4c2a-871c-82ac5da21...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > Stephen P wrote:
>
> > >Queen Latifah - Is she actually claiming to be a sovereign of a
> > >country or is it a stage name? There is a world of difference between
> > >the two.
>
> > Queen Latifah obtained her 'title' from the same source as Count
> > Basie, Earl Hines, Lord Sutch, Duke Ellington and Prince.
>
> And indeed the legitimate fount of such titles in the US is . . . one's
> self, or one's marketing agent, or one's public. All our jazz & pop
> royalty are thoroughly legitimate.
>
> This is Greg's point, for all its artlessness: Within the US Howe is
> perfectly within his rights to claim whatever name or title he wishes,
> whether it is one which happens to belong to someone else in another
> country, or not. In this respect, Howe is 'legal'. My detailed
> questions posted upthread about whether Howe could be found criminally
> liable *within the UK* if he were actually there, impersonating the
> sovereign of Man (who is the queen), still stand, though: they are not
> rhetorical questions and I would like to know the answer.
Nat
I don't believe it is a crime per se to adopt a pretend style or title
in the UK. It has happened from time to time - eg the fringe
politician 'Screaming Lord Sutch' [name changed by deed poll].
There are certain consequences - or non-consequences - that follow
such action: ie no precedence may be assumed, no attributes accrete
(you can't expect to be called Your Grace if you pretend to be a
Duke), none of the remaining privileges of peerage apply (eg special
access to the House of Lords; right to vote in elections for
representative hereditary peers).
What distinguishes such pretensions in the criminal area are whether
(a) they constitute treason - ie pretending to be the rightful
sovereign and concomitantly advocating the deposition of the monarch
(which Howe is struggling to remain on the right side of) and (b)
whether they are being used for fraudulent purposes - eg I am a
'genuine undisputed' king and I'll sell you one of my 'genuine noble
titles' for five hundred thousand pounds...
MA-R
Nathaniel Taylor
<f9820a3c-87b5-4ce3...@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Is there no middle ground (not in this case but in an hypothetical one)
where one assumes a title which rightfully belongs to another? Even
without a scheme to sell something under the assumed title, could it be
construed as identity theft?
In the Howe case the title assumed is one belonging to the sovereign, so
I suppose one could add treason to more pedestrian possible charges of
identity theft etc.
mj...@btinternet.com
I'm not sure - in order for it to be identity theft, you'd have to
pretend to be another specific person, wouldn't you?
If I say I am the rightful Duke of Edinburgh, and start calling myself
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, I may be usurping someone's title - but I'm
not stealing their identity (unless I also say I am the chap named
Philip Oldenburg, born in Corfu in 1921 etc).
I think you'd have to go a further step in order for the mere
assumpion of a title or mock title to be contrary to law: either fraud
or impersonation.
Otherwise, the only sanction is the fact that people will (rightly)
think you're nuts.
MA-R
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nat and Michael are on the mark. (Thanks again Nat) Stephen as usual,
you take me too seriously (defensiveness) when I apply sarcasim:
however true. But, that's your issue...
The bit about Queen Latifah goes to show cause in my argument.
Unfortunately, anybody in the US (for free) and the UK (for a price)
can be whom ever they want to be, and this loophole is what Howe et al
use and have been using, because they can. It's no different than the
Family Coat of Arms gig. I keep hoping that the erudites in our
community will use the system (media included) to apply presure to
these 'markets' so that some real advances can be made for the cause
of legitimacy and bring in some much needed equliberium. With Howe,
the key is the Isle of Man, but apparently, he squeezed through that
hole as well.
In Scotland, it's the title (Barons) commodities market: a
contributing factor, because it inserts a confusing note of legitimacy
into the equation: what the hell is going to happen if Howe comes up
with enough do-rae-me to buy a Scottish Barony!? Could happen...
StephenP
> In Scotland, it's the title (Barons) commodities market: a
> contributing factor, because it inserts a confusing note of legitimacy
> into the equation: what the hell is going to happen if Howe comes up
> with enough do-rae-me to buy a Scottish Barony!? Could happen...
The ability to "buy" a Scottish Feudal Barony may well be confusing to
some. However, a modicum of research would reveal that it is legal
and has been going on for centuries. That said, Howe does seem to
have some difficulty comprehending the differences between baronies
and baronetcies judging by his sockpuppet contributions at Wiki, now
removed.
In his reply to Michael he cites the sale of titles by King James as
his justification. But he seems to have missed the point that James
"sold" baronetcies to men of substance who were his subjects.
As to Howe becoming a Scottish Feudal Baron, presupposing that he had
a spare £50K or so, I doubt if his ego would permit the "demotion" to
a mere (albeit genuine) feudal baron.
Yours aye
Stephen
Greg
Scots Baronys are simply a case in point. The whole "Title" thing is
confusing to most, and most are not going to take the time to
investigate what they are really getting into: it's a novelty to them.
Scots baronys are legal: I've said that many times. Everybody (in the
know) knows that they have been legal for centuries. The problem is -
this is 2008! and as such they fall into "purchased titles" and are a
contributing factor. Somebody like Howe is an opportunist, and that's
as plain as it gets. But think about the damage that could be done if
somebody with his motivations actually bought a Barony.
There is not enough legitimacy in "titles" these days to support Scots
Baronys, (outside of the UK) and that is problematic for the cause.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you think of any other property which someone can own in the UK
but not outside it? Bit of a novelty. The use of the word 'legitimacy'
implies something akin to legality - but of course it says nothing of
legality. Scottish feudal baronies exist as property in law in the UK
and if they exist in law in one country an owner does not cease to own
or be a baron just because he is outside the UK.
Graham Senior-Milne
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scots Baronys have been separated from the land, and as such carry no
meaning in the traditional sense ( I know about the legitimate
connections to the UK within these specific titles, but this seems
really just a loophole), I am however referring herein to what these
Baronies used to represent - and still should in my view.
Now as to owners outwith Scotland: it may be perfectly legal, but is
problematic because outsiders water down the culture of titles,
particularly within a sitting monarchy. (An opinion shared by many).
A Scottish paper Barony has the same property value as the pink slip
to a car: the value is relative to the market: a small minority within
a macrocosm.
Legitimacy in this sense is interesting because there are many many
titles from al over that are legitimate to the parties within, but not
necessarily to parties without, and that is the crux of my point, and
this is why a Scots paper Barony falls within the legitimate view that
they are as ego driven as nay other titles these days. (Legal and
perfectly respectable for a Scots citizen to enjoin). But as is, the
bleed-over effect into other misunderstandings within this sphere is
bad for these Baronies.
I should not be able to buy one unless I am a Scottish citizen
residing in Scotland. That would help.
Yes, I know that someone from France etc could buy them 300 years ago:
but these people were already titled members of the Royal class of
that other country. But things have changed. Therefore it is the
opinion of many that Scots laws in the matter should take a more
protectionist view.
StephenP
> Howe does not seem to relish any sort of critical analysis of his
> claims. I wonder how he will react to this latest mention. He has,
> for now at least, had a set back at Wikipedia so we may have to look
> elsewhere for his next attempt at disinformation.
Howe has attempted a return to Wikipedia. The article King of Mann
did have a section headed "Pretender" which made mention of Howe's
claim. However, on 02Feb08 user 76.100.195.121 (who has appeared
before) then expanded it to reflect a more favourable view of Howe's
claim. There was the usual bit of "pushing and shoving" which
resulted in the whole section being deleted. Thus, because he cannot
leave well alone, Howe has had all mention of his claim removed.
No doubt he will be back in one guise or another.
Yours aye
Stephen
Martin Goldstraw
//snip//
> In his reply to Michael he cites the sale of titles by King James as
> his justification. But he seems to have missed the point that James
> "sold" baronetcies to men of substance who were his subjects.
>
> Yours aye
>
> Stephen
It is a very common misconception that King James sold baronetcies. In
fact, he went out of his way to seek legal advice to ensure that the
contract between the Crown and the recipient could not be mistaken for
the sale of any title.
An English Baronet entered into a cognisance to pay £1095 in
installments over three years such sum to be used solely for the
maintenance of thirty soldiers at the rate of eight pence a day. In
addition, he also had to pay twelve hundred pounds which was the price
of the passing of the patent. All this to assist in the "peace" of
Ireland.
Scottish baronets in fact purchased land in Nova Scotia each of 16
thousand acres which was erected into a a barony and regality so they
became minor barons though they had precedence above other minor
barons, The contract that new Nova Scotia baronets entered into
obliged them to fund the entire settlement of their newly created
barony and regality including the cost of building churches
settlements and law enforcement etc ... quite an undertaking and
probably far more expensive an undertaking than their English cousins.
Though many or most of the baronies were settled, not many of the
baronets ever set foot upon their Nova Scotia territory. Later on.
many didn't even get any actual land.
So, to reiterate, James received money and promises for assistance
towards the Peace of Ireland and towards the resettlement of Nova
Scotia. In return he awarded the gift (NB a gift) of a baronetcy.
Those who received a baronetcy had to pay the scriveners for their
letters patent but this fee was not for the title.
Regards,
Martin
Greg
That seems a bit of a contradiction. As I understand it, a Baronet's
place was between a knight and a baron: with both knight and baron
being titles. The recipient of a baronet received letters patent and
his place in that line. What you suggest Martin - as least as it
reads, is that a Baronet was really just an armiger who could place
the word Baronet before his name... and that the (Baronetcies) were
simply another form of a grants of arms to commoners...
This doesn't answer the modern question however.
Don Aitken
wrote:
Martin is dealing with Scotish law here. A Scottish barony is *not* a
title - it is a form of property. A baronet of Nova Scotia acquired a
barony, but his *title* was not a that of a barony. Whether a baronet
is a "commoner" depends on what meaning you choose to give to that
slippery and imprecise term.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Greg
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:20:24 -0800 (PST), Greg <scoti...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Don,
>A Scottish barony is *not* a title - it is a form of property.
I think you'll get some argument from the barony balcony on that.
What is implied by 'commoner' is that these Baronets were drawn from
common men of means who could support such ventures.
It was fund raising with - additaments :)
A Baronet as I pointed out, was different that a Baron - in line and
(title) and usage. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
Modern Barons in principle are equivalent to the Baronage of old. The
practice of the (paper) Barons has been all but removed.
The question still remains however of what would happen if someone
like Howe were to buy one? From what I can tell, there is nothing to
prevent him from it. I believe it naive to think that this scenario
will not occur at some point the way things are going; or is there a
fail safe in the system?
Martin Goldstraw
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:20:24 -0800 (PST), Greg <scoti...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
Don is quite correct.
Any mention of the word "title" in my above post is entirely
restricted to that of baronet.The whole context of my post being a
response to the missinformed view that King James sold baronetcies -
he did not.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Goldstraw
Greg,
I can not see where there is any contradiction. King James did not
sell the dignity of baronet to anyone and he went out of his way to
ensure that the contract between him and the recipient could not be
mistaken for the sale of any title. He rewarded those who assisted him
by granting to them the dignity of baronet, The English assisted him
by way of keeping the peace in Ireland and the Scots assisted him by
way of purchasing land in Nova Scotia and settling it. Do not let your
mind become confused by the fact that he erected those lands in Nova
Scotia into Baronies and Regalitis, thus making those who purchased
the lands into minor barons - that is a side issue. Whilst those Nova
Scotia baronets were minor barons, it doesnt make all minor barons
baronets.
Although my response had to make mention of the fact that Nova Scotia
baronets received baronies, because that is a fact, the substance of
the reply was nothing to do with these baronies but everything to do
with the misconception that the title, or perhaps more correctly the
dignity, of baronet was not sold by the King but was gifted as a
reward for assistance in his endeavours.
I have no great confidence that you will grasp what I am saying.
>As I understand it, a Baronet's
> place was between a knight and a baron: with both knight and baron
> being titles. The recipient of a baronet received letters patent and
> his place in that line.
Correct. Though to be absolutely precise, they have the dignity and
along with the dignity comes the right to the title.
> What you suggest Martin - as least as it
> reads, is that a Baronet was really just an armiger who could place
> the word Baronet before his name... and that the (Baronetcies) were
> simply another form of a grants of arms to commoners...
I made no such suggestion and I fail to see how you could read that I
did.
Baronets do not in anycase place the word baronet before their name.
They place the word "Sir" before their name and must follow it with
the word baronet. This practise (of following the name with the word
baronet) has become shortened to the initials Bt, or even Bart though
there is no authority for this and to be correct a baronet ought to
use the whole of the word.
This doesn't answer the modern question however.
What on earth is "the modern question"? Baronets are still extant and
have "almost" the same rights and precident that they started with.
Regards,
Martin
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin,
I see now. Don is referring to (the) Barony as opposed to the Baron.
The posistions still being differenced by the names / titles of the
holders: Baron vs Baronet.
But what about the rest of the outline?
Martin Goldstraw
> >As I understand it, a Baronet's
> > place was between a knight and a baron: with both knight and baron
> > being titles. The recipient of a baronet received letters patent and
> > his place in that line.
Greg,
I think I should further clarify that in actual fact a baronet takes
his place above a knight but below a peer of the realm - in England
that would be a Baron and in Scotland that would be a Lord of
Parliament. In terms of precedence, Scottish barons didn't even figure
in the running order. When I agreed with you that a baronet takes his
place between a knight and a baron, I had in mind a baron who is a
peer. I am sorry if I confused you but realise I may have done.
King James quite clearly set down a ranking order - which changed
slightly upon petition from the younger sons of some peers who did not
like the thought of baronets being above them. Scottish barons do not
figure in any list of precedence set out by the King when referring to
the rank of a baronet.
I hope this helps.
Martin
Greg
Yes Martin it does, thank you.
Don Aitken
<herald...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2:20 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >As I understand it, a Baronet's
>> > place was between a knight and a baron: with both knight and baron
>> > being titles. The recipient of a baronet received letters patent and
>> > his place in that line.
>
>Greg,
>I think I should further clarify that in actual fact a baronet takes
>his place above a knight but below a peer of the realm - in England
>that would be a Baron and in Scotland that would be a Lord of
>Parliament. In terms of precedence, Scottish barons didn't even figure
>in the running order.
They do, but, according to Whitaker's table of precedence in Scotland,
their place is a rather lowly one. "Barons-feudal" come after Knights'
younger sons and Queen's Counsel, and ahead only of Esquires and
Gentlemen. That table refers to Lords of Parliament as "Lord-Barons".
ghp9...@yahoo.com
> This is a typical piece of Howe's prose and is very similar,
> rhetorically, to some of his posts on bullshido.net back in December
> 04. The bullshido.net poster he singles out in this current appeal is
> the one who declared himself to be unmoved by Howe's alleged remorse
> for earlier fraudulent activity in the martial arts sphere.
==========
Nat,
Can you tell me more? I've been involved in martial arts since 1968,
and have had to debunk a few "bullshido" type people -- especially
those involved in Japanese Swordsmanship (iaido; battodo; kenjutsu;
etc.). As this subject is decidedly off-topic, feel free to email me
at:
ghp95134 (at) yehaw (dot) combat.
Regards,
-Guy
(yahoo vice yehaw; com vice combat)
Martin Goldstraw
> They do, but, according to Whitaker's table of precedence in Scotland,
> their place is a rather lowly one. "Barons-feudal" come after Knights'
> younger sons and Queen's Counsel, and ahead only of Esquires and
> Gentlemen. That table refers to Lords of Parliament as "Lord-Barons".
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Sorry Don but they don't! My comments relate entirely to the creation
of baronets and the subsequent legal challenges over their pecking
order. And minor Scottish barons just don't figure in the equation.
You will recall that I said "King James quite clearly set down a
ranking order - which changed slightly upon petition from the younger
sons of some peers who did not like the thought of baronets being
above them. Scottish barons do not
figure in any list of precedence set out by the King when referring to
the rank of a baronet. "
Note that I said "when referring to the rank of a baronet".
When King considered where in the pecking order a baronet should fit
and in all the subsequent legal challenges, there was never any
mention of minor Scottish barons and where they might have fitted in.
They simply were not mentioned.
I do not quibble over the table of precedence given by Whitaker but
only comment that when considering where the dignity of baronet might
sit, the King took absolutely no account of minor Scottish barons. I
draw my own conclusion to that fact.
Regards,
Martin
StephenP
>
> I do not quibble over the table of precedence given by Whitaker but
> only comment that when considering where the dignity of baronet might
> sit, the King took absolutely no account of minor Scottish barons. I
> draw my own conclusion to that fact.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
I have no knowledge of Whitaker's order of precedence. However, I do
recall a telephone call with the Lyon Clerk wherein she said that
Minor/Feudal Barons have no separate precedence within the table. The
precedence of someone who is a baron depends wholly upon their
"status" elsewhere in the table.
Before any enraged feudal baron leap in, may I ask that they do so in
a separate thread so that we do not stray too far from the antics of
the King of Mann aka David Drew Howe.
Yours aye
Stephen