Howe's "King of Man" scam continues
mj...@btinternet.com
an interview between him and Stuart Peters is due to be broadcast on
the Isle of Man tomorrow (6 March 2008).
Howe refers to Peters as "Sir Stuart", and calls him his "first
knight".
A related news-piece appears here:
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?paper=67&cat=104&article=94257
Dated 4 March 2008, it shows that Howe is persisting with his specious
claims, and that Peters appears to back him.
The usual lies continue unabated (Howe's claims in "undisputed" etc),
but now Howe admits the 'title' sales were "one of his biggest
gaffes".
It looks like this con is going to run for a bit longer.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> The usual lies continue unabated (Howe's claims is "undisputed" etc),
> but now Howe admits the 'title' sales were "one of his biggest
> gaffes".
Nevertheless, as at 5 March 2008 these fake "titles" remain touted
online for sale here:
http://www.heritagesociety.co.uk/nobility_titles.html
(prices of up to 500,000 pounds).
MA-R
Greg
I'd like to be "Sir" for $80,000 I'm going to make my 15 month old
grandson a Viscount for only $70,000 - what luck. It can be done !!
ghp9...@yahoo.com
decided not to show my face there until we got things sorted out."
I'm sure there are a few stalwarts who are willing to "sort him out."
;^D
--Guy Power
Hovite
He says: "the Titles of Nobility are not based in the U.K and are not
U.K peerages" but the title of earl is unique to Britain.
StephenP
You may have seen a recent post at Manxforums;
I'm sure you'd welcome a chance to chat with Stuart Peters.
Yours aye
Stephen
StephenP
> Michael
>
> You may have seen a recent post at Manxforums;
>
>
> I'm sure you'd welcome a chance to chat with Stuart Peters.
>
> Yours aye
>
> Stephen
A "David" seems quite active today at Manxforums.
Yours aye
Stephen
Nathaniel Taylor
<60cada6d-273a-4c97...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
Loves to give himself more rope, right? I guess, given his girth, he
needs it. See here:
http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20628&pid=307140&mod
e=threaded&start=400#entry307140
> Today, 01:49 PM
> Post #402
>
> MF Newbie
>
> Group: Members
> Posts: 6
> Joined: Today, 12:01 PM
> Member No.: 12,122
>
> I'm not really sure where to start with this, so I'm just going to say what
> comes to mind.
>
> I guess the first thing that comes to mind is the idea that Stuart Peters or
> any other media person in the Isle of Man is responsible for the attention
> I've gotten. In my estimation, it is you all posting here that has gotten my
> claim all the attention. I read a thread from back in October where one of
> the regulars here said that it was your postings that caught the media's
> attention. So, take the credit / blame you all deserve.
>
> Second, there has been an assumption from the start that I knew everything I
> was getting myself into here. I'm not claiming innocence, but I am claiming
> some initial ignorance. Primarily cultural ignorance. I had an initial
> assumption when I decided to play along and go forward with my claim that not
> too many people would care too much and that it probably wouldn't last beyond
> 5 minutes. Everyone close to me assumed the same as we all often joked about
> it. It was and still is funny. Funny from the perspective that a person like
> me having ties to royalty. I consider the joke me and not me attempting to
> have a joke at your expense. It's a funny story and has been compounded by
> all the attention.
>
> I suppose I'm naive, but I did not imagine in the process of doing all this
> that I could have possibly angered anyone. This would be my cultural
> ignorance. I could not have imagined that blogs and web sites would have been
> dedicated to purposely misrepresenting my intentions and who I am. Now, for
> this part, there are just a few people involved and they know exactly what
> they are doing. Why they are doing it, I'm not entirely sure. But a lot has
> been mischaracterized and taken out of context and attribute to me that I
> have never said. All of it failing to capture the humor I was brining to it
> or citing anything that supports these other "nefarious things" for their
> obvious humor except to present it as if I'm the joke but I don't know it,
> "lock this guy away before he hurts himself" kind of thing.
>
> I contributed to this two ways. First, my web site was perhaps a bit too
> serious and a little over the top and second, I was pitching titles of
> nobility (more on that in a second). However, when I've done an interview for
> a newspaper or TV I have always been myself. I've never attempted to act like
> I was HM Queen Elizabeth II or act like I was raised for that purpose.
> Unfortunately, some people don't see or read the interviews. I had the Fox
> News interview on the front page of the site for several months which I
> thought captured the spirit of things but I suppose I see in it way I want to
> see and others see something else. I don't know.
>
> Now, my interest in aiding Malawi children is perhaps the most serious I can
> ever be. Sadly, attempting to raise money through title sales compounded the
> criticism. I've abandoned the whole project because I did not want to
> negatively impact the charities that I was attempting to help. No one told me
> I had to. The FBI didn't show up at my door and I wasn't being threatened
> with loosing my citizenship. All funny stuff, but far from factual.
>
> I never sold a title or anyway personally profited from this. Any charge that
> I have or would is a complete falsehood. The person rallying this effort, Mr.
> Reading, to show that I had some less than genuine intent does not personally
> know me, he does not know anyone who knows me and has absolutely nothing to
> back up his assertions. And, for all his interest in royalty, nobility,
> heraldry and me, I'm left wondering why in his thousands upon thousands of
> posts about fraudulent title selling that he purports to be an expert on, I
> can't seem to find a single comment from him regarding the British Cash for
> Honours scandal. It seems only logical to me that he would have posted on a
> Usenet group somewhere with at least a little bit of interest particularly
> given the hours he has spent on me...but I can't find a single post. It seems
> only logical that he would have spent at least a proportional amount of time
> on that.
>
> Okay, so perhaps I'm deflecting a bit here. I'll admit that. But, seriously,
> what power do I have? What power have I ever asked for? What power do I want?
> The answer to these questions is NONE. Mr. Reading is himself a British
> politician. He holds public office in Buckinghamshire. He's had political
> aspirations for much longer than I've known who the Plantagenet's and Normans
> were. But, I'm his big scandal? I'm quoting from UK papers that the parties
> under his own nose have been accused of selling peerages to donors for
> millions upon millions of pounds...to give them a seat in the House of Lords,
> a clear violation of the law, they have apparently lied about doing it,
> several high level people were arrested, it was thought that Tony Blair had
> intimate knowledge of it and Mr. Reading, the great crusader, never says a
> word about it?
>
> Sorry for the rant here folks, but I felt that I needed to defend myself just
> a little bit and to maybe to try to balance perspective a little. If you all
> don't take me seriously, if I don't take myself too seriously, no worries..
> because I doubt anyone else is and my intent has never been anything other
> than this. You have guys, like Reading, well educated and well connected, who
> have spent countless hours trying to dig something tangible up on me, trying
> to influence peoples opinions of me and all the while ignoring a real scandal
> that has real world implications. Remember, I have no power, I've not asked
> for it and I don't want it. I'm just some American having a bit of fun and
> trying to do some good with a pretty interesting thing that happened to me
> and, for all your efforts, you guys have made it pretty popular.
>
> Finally, I realize most of you don't like me and that I couldn't possibly
> change your minds about me, but at least consider your sources and the
> reasons why one would spend hours upon hours trying to dig dirt up on someone
> who isn't any sort of threat and who isn't illegally trying to influence
> others by buying appointments and power, and why a person would ignore those
> that are. The windscreen repairman from the States is the bad guy, really?
>
> David
=======================================
Surely he will erase it soon.
=======================================
By the way: from another post by him at --
http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20628&pid=307146&mod
e=threaded&start=400#entry307146
-- :
> The forum created the media attention on the Island. Someone here e-mailed my
> local paper and created the attention here, which created the TV attention,
> which has snowballed into Hollywood attention. All I did was go along with a
> couple of other guys who thought it would be fun to put forth my claim. You
> guys made it happen. I did not ask for this. I thought it would last 5
> minutes.
>
> David
What is the 'Hollywood attention' he claims to have received?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
mj...@btinternet.com
(snip of crap)
> By the way: from another post by him at --
>
> http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20628&pid=307146...
> e=threaded&start=400#entry307146
>
> > The forum created the media attention on the Island. Someone here e-mailed
> > my local paper and created the attention here, which created the TV attention,
> > which has snowballed into Hollywood attention. All I did was go along with a
> > couple of other guys who thought it would be fun to put forth my claim. You
> > guys made it happen. I did not ask for this. I thought it would last 5
> > minutes.
>
> > David
Ah, more lies. Cf:
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's official information site as well as the official myspace
page are his sole means of Internet communications.
Plus ca change.
MA-R
David
> According to David Drew Howe's website:
>
> www.royaltyofman.com
>
> an interview between him and Stuart Peters is due to be broadcast on
> the Isle of Man tomorrow (6 March 2008).
>
> Howe refers to Peters as "Sir Stuart", and calls him his "first
> knight".
>
> A related news-piece appears here:
>
>
> Dated 4 March 2008, it shows that Howe is persisting with his specious
> claims, and that Peters appears to back him.
>
> The usual lies continue unabated (Howe's claims in "undisputed" etc),
> but now Howe admits the 'title' sales were "one of his biggest
> gaffes".
>
> It looks like this con is going to run for a bit longer.
>
> MA-R
Michael, I realize you are maybe a little upset. I didn't go through
you, a UK Politician, to get my title. But, can you blame me? The
prices you guys are charging, millions of pounds, for a Knighthood and
millions more for a peerage. Even on a glassman's salary there is no
way I could swing it. Unlike your usual buyers, I just don't have
that kind of money and I wasn't angling for a seat in the House of
Lords. I don't want any power and I've never asked for any.
I figured, hey, why not appeal to the Queen directly. She is my
cousin after all. Plus, it didn't feel right that I should have to
buy something that already belongs to my family. Hopefully you
understand. This was never a matter of trying to cut out the
middleman. Sorry if you feel that way.
I know you also feel I became competition, what with all that I was
charging being a mere fraction of the price of the "loans" being
requested in the UK. Any way, listen, I've ended that campaign. I
just couldn't compete because I didn't have any power to offer up to
anyone like your guys do.
You know, if I could offer up some advice, just as a reference point,
it would be pretty interesting for you to put on your site you have
about me the same analysis of Queen Elizabeth's pedigree, say down
from Richard III maybe. That's the same time period for from my
descent from Thomas II. I wonder what you might find? I've heard
there is all sorts of third and forth children taking the
throne...some of it even pretty bloody from what I understand. Oh, and
don't forget the stuff with George, Duke of Clarence and Edward IV
being illegitimate...see Channel 4. http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/monarch.html
Whew, I am I glad I don't come down and illegitimate line. I just
can't imagin what you'd say about that.
Any way, take care.
D
mj...@btinternet.com
> Michael, I realize you are maybe a little upset.
Nope, you don't upset me - you bore me. As clowns go, you are very
dull and quite unentertaining. I can't even be bothered to update my
website about your scams.
> I didn't go through you, a UK Politician,
Sorry to disappoint - I happen to serve on a local council in a small
country town in rural Buckinghamshire, having been asked to stand
because of my finance expertise. I have no political ambitions at
all, and no great political interests. But I'm not ashamed at having
been elected to represent my community, so please feel free to trumpet
it as much as you like.
Then again, you know what, David - it's actually not about me; it's
about you.
> (snip of twaddle)
If you are so keen for publicity that you'll settle for the negative
sort, that's your call. In the process you've laid out your mistruths
and delusions and inconsistencies for all to see [shucks, remember:
you don't post to internet forums - just like you don't use sock-
puppets]. And I expect they'll remain online ad infinitum.
Kicked off Wikipedia for lying and self-promotion; caught out trying
to flog fake titles (oh, I know, it was just a "gaffe"); exposed to
ridicule as a fantasist, fibber and conman. You can be really proud
of yourself. I bet your family and neighbours are.
Remember, those who are laughing are not laughing with you - they're
laughing at you.
Have a nice day.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> It looks like this con is going to run for a bit longer.
>
> MA-R
Here is the advice to Howe that I posted way back on 27 October 2006
in relation to this charade:
"If you do not wish to come across as a madman, a hoaxer or a fraud, I
would advise you to stop calling yourself 'Prince David Stanley-Howe'
immediately. The internet is already full of fakes, and you should
not aspire to add to their number.
"Be honest and up front. This thread was started by "Bob", who had
never posted to any groups before. After starting the discussion and
"inviting" you to join it, he disappeared, showing no further interest
to date in the subject he was ostensibly keen to discuss. A cynic
might conclude that he was acting as a harbinger or a puppet - I hope
he will soon come back to allay my suspicions.
"For better or for worse, you have now alerted the world to your
claims, and you should expect them to be subjected to rigorous
scrutiny. From my point of view, they fail on a number of points;
your task is now to overcome the hurdles if you can. I am sure we
will be interested to follow your progress."
We have now followed that progress, as Howe has performed on the
peripheries of the global stage: from naif, to villain, to clown.
His website, containing the "scholarship" behind his claims, has now
descended to farce, as predicted here previously:
"Q) I read on the Internet that members of royalty like Prince Charles
and King David are shape-shifting reptiles, is this true?
A) While we can't speak for the Prince of Wales, King David is not a
reptile and is actually allergic to small furry rodents. So, it's
doubtful that he would consume one, at least not undercooked and
without the proper wine."
Ha, ha, ha.
MA-R
Nathaniel Taylor
<06ff3d51-adce-440d...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> Kicked off Wikipedia for lying and self-promotion; caught out trying
> to flog fake titles (oh, I know, it was just a "gaffe"); exposed to
> ridicule as a fantasist, fibber and conman.
Not just ridicule: a certain indignation as well. It is wire fraud:
selling that which does not exist, and/or that which the seller has no
right to sell.
David: No, I'm not law enforcement. But I am writing an article on your
case for a genealogical journal. Feel free to contact me by e-mail if
you would be willing to answer a few questions.
Nathaniel Taylor
<80368367-9291-4982...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Mar 7, 3:06 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
> (snip of crap)
>
> > By the way: from another post by him at --
> >
> > http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20628&pid=307146...
> > e=threaded&start=400#entry307146
> >
> > > The forum created the media attention on the Island. Someone here
> > > e-mailed
> > > my local paper and created the attention here, which created the TV
> > > attention,
> > > which has snowballed into Hollywood attention. All I did was go along
> > > with a
> > > couple of other guys who thought it would be fun to put forth my claim.
> > > You
> > > guys made it happen. I did not ask for this. I thought it would last 5
> > > minutes.
> >
> > > David
>
> Ah, more lies.
Well, the "couple of other guys who thought it would be fun to put forth
my claim" thing is ridiculous--at least as regards his old fiction that
some 'royal genealogist' sought him out: but it *could* have been a
drinking buddy that first put him up to it. In fact I sort of hope that
it was.
Beyond that, "you guys made it happen" is an arguable interpretation, I
suppose. He is (I think) being accurate about the chronology (his own
website got noticed at manxforum.com, which generated a local stir
there; this got sent over to his Frederick paper and thence made the TV
news outlets, etc.). I do think he tried to have it be an entirely
internet thing at first, without real-life publicity.
David
> In article
> <80368367-9291-4982-bf70-1551ab86c...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nat, feel free to e-mail me. I'd be happy to talk with you. The wire
fraud thing is a bit of rich charge bordering on being libelous I
think. The fact is we have a difference of opinion and as it was from
the beginning, I don't have any problem being friendly with people who
don't agree with me. It makes for good conversation. By throwing out
that kind of stuff, well it would be like a politician taking loans
for UK peerages offering seats in the House of Lords...now such a
thing really does seem to be fraud. Perhaps I should have asked for
loans...
And, Mike, I'm sorry I bore you. But, if it's not too boring for you,
I'd really like to see that side by side analysis with the Queen's
pedigree from Richard III showing all those neat captions (not her
father's heir) like you do. That would be really cool don't you
think? It would be really excellent for you, I think, as you continue
to ignore me, "the clown", whilst you contact all the newspapers that
have done a piece about my story and give them this new side by side
analysis. I know it must be boring for you to call all those
newspapers about me but now you could have some excitement with it
because you're doing the same type of a analysis with the Queen. Oh,
and since I don't think you've done this yet, maybe even do an
analysis of the UK cash for honours scandal at the same time. It
would be a real treat.
Nat, send me an e-mail anytime.
D
mj...@btinternet.com
> And, Mike, I'm sorry I bore you. But, if it's not too boring for you,
> I'd really like to see that side by side analysis with the Queen's
> pedigree from Richard III showing all those neat captions (not her
> father's heir) like you do. That would be really cool don't you
> think? It would be really excellent for you, I think, as you continue
> to ignore me,
I don't ignore you, I just find you dull.
An analysis of the Queen's heirship is simple:
1. Richard, Duke of York, died 1460; married and had issue:
2a. Edward IV, King of England, eldest son and heir; notwithstanding
modern allegations that his father was not Richard, Duke of York, he
was born in lawful matrimony (and thus was legally the son of Richard
under English common law); furthermore, he was explicitly recognised
both by his legal father and by the English Parliament as his father's
son and heir; died 1483; married and had issue - see below.
2b. Richard III, King of England, died 1485; usurped the throne from
his nephew, 1483; died without surviving issue.
Issue of King Edward IV:
3a. Edward V, King of England, ruled briefly in 1483; died without
issue
3b. Richard, Duke of York; died young without issue
3c. Elizabeth, eldest daughter and heir of Edward IV; married Henry,
Earl of Richmond, afterwards recognised by the English Parliament as
King Henry VII; issue:
4a. Arthur, Prince of Wales; died without issue
4b. Henry VIII, King of England; his legitimate issue extinct in 1603
4c. Margaret, married James IV, King of Scots; issue:
5. James V, King of Scots; married and left issue:
6. Mary I, Queen of Scots; married and left issue:
7. James VI & I, King of Great Britain; heir to the English throne in
1603; died 1625; married and left issue:
8a. Charles I, King of Great Britain; executed 1649; married and left
issue:
9a. Charles II, King of Great Britain; died 1685; no legitimate issue
9b. James II, King of Great Britain; ruled 1685-1688; deemed to have
abdicated; married twice and left issue:
10a. Mary II, Queen of Great Britain; married William III, recognised
as King by the English Parliament, 1689; died without issue.
10b. Anne, Queen of Great Britain; monarch at the time that the crowns
were united, 1707; died in 1714 without surviving issue
10c. James, Prince of Wales; excluded from the British throne by
Parliament, 1689, and his heirs excluded by the Act of Settlement;
legitimate issue extinct in 1807
9c. Henrietta, married the Duke of Orleans, and left issue, who are
not heirs to the British throne by virtue of the Act of Settlement
(and the earlier parliamentary provisions of 1689) but in whom the
Jacobite claim is notionally vested.
8b. Elizabeth, married Frederick, Elector-Palatine and sometime King
of Bohemia; left issue:
8c. Sophia, named as heir to the British throne under the Act of
Settlement; died 1714; married Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hannover;
left issue:
9. George I, eldest son and heir; King of the United Kingdom, died
1727; married and left issue:
10. George II, eldest son and heir; King of the UK; died 1760; married
and left issue:
11. Frederick, Prince of Wales, eldest son and heir; died vita patris;
married and left issue:
12. George III, eldest son and heir; King of the UK; died 1820;
married and left issue:
13a. George IV, eldest son and heir; died 1830 without surviving
legitimate issue
13b. Frederick, Duke of York, 2nd son; died 1827 without legitimate
issue
13c. William IV, 3rd son; died 1837 without surviving legitimate issue
13d. Edward, Duke of Kent; died 1820; married and left issue:
14. Victoria, only child and heir; Queen from 1837; died 1901; married
and left issue:
15. Edward VII, eldest son and heir; King from 1901; died 1910;
married and left issue:
16. George V, only surviving son and heir; King from 1910; died 1936;
married and left issue:
17a. Edward VIII, eldest son and heir; succeeded as King in 1936;
abdicated all rights pursuant to an Act of the UK Parliament, 1936;
died 1972 without issue.
17b. George VI, second son and eventual heir; King from 1936; died
1952; married and left issue:
18. Elizabeth II, elder daughter and heir; Queen of the United
Kingdom, and Lord of the Isle of Man since 1952.
MA-R
StephenP
[quote]I was wondering when this time would come. So far we've been
treated to:
1. Royal Howe, complete with faux-legitimate claim (the Gazette
announcement), coronation ceremony, talk of celebrity and royal
friends and relatives and pricey royal favours;
2. Media Howe: Appearing on the news, in the papers, sending out
earnest press releases to bargain basement news aggregation sites
without so much as a hint of what's now claimed to be ironic or
playful intent
3. Damage Limitation Howe skulking around the internet ready to edit
and post here and there under the cover of sock puppets in order to
head off the mounting criticism.
and finally
4. The Wide Eyed Puppy Everyone was Mean to. Full of innocent abroad/
injured party pretentions. Sadly, they barely cover the Howe we've
come to know and love: a manipulative and sly character not above
trying to wriggle out of things when the going gets a bit too hot and
distort the issue to focus on irrelevancies such as the cash for
honours scandal or the aspirations of those who've managed to pin him
down in the past.
Suffice to say, nothing about how you've conducted yourself tallies
with how you've now chosen to portray yourself or your motives. What
it does resemble, however, is the modus operandi you've established
for yourself/been accused of in the past. Time to face facts, you
simply reached too far with this one, and it's time for you to bow out
as gracefully as you can manage.
On that note: so, how long can we expect to wait before we can enjoy
your final incarnation and watch as you dismiss your own considerable
efforts to convince the world you're king as "satire"? I'd like to
know if only so I can start a sweepstake on how long it takes before
you pop up on another forum/newsgroup trying to advance some other
claims (it's not gambling in the strictest sense, since I will be
donating all profits to some charity or other, minus a modest
administration fee).
Stu*, going on record about how the government would surely have
contradicted Howe's claims by now if they had any evidence to debunk
him is not evidence of balance, or a tounge in cheek appraisal of the
story. Whether you truly believe this guff, or you're just stringing
everyone along in order to prolong a reliable story you can trot out
every now and again doesn't really matter, your treatment of the story
has not been impartial - something everyone here seems to recognise.
[unquote]
*Stu = Stuart Peters a local Manx "journalist" who has interviewed
Howe a couple of time for the radio.
Yours aye
Stephen
David
I was also once accused of kicking a ball through a plate glass window
when I was 10 too....but listen, I swear it wasn't me. Really, it
wasn't. In all seriousness though, I do like the fact that you guys
gave my story legs. Had there not been such a backlash with blogs and
web sites attempting to debunk my claim, as I was told by one of the
reporters this week, no one would have thought much of it. He said it
was the controversy that has made the story....his words not mine.
So, I guess, in a weird sort of way, thanks.
Yours aye
D R
Nathaniel Taylor
<36dba9b2-e94c-4a90...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
David <prince...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... In all seriousness though, I do like the fact that you guys
> gave my story legs. Had there not been such a backlash with blogs and
> web sites attempting to debunk my claim, as I was told by one of the
> reporters this week, no one would have thought much of it. He said it
> was the controversy that has made the story....his words not mine.
Which reporter? From the chronology of the press coverage and internet
reaction this is almost certainly untrue, unless he's referring to the
Manx radio guy who played him for laughs in the recent interview.
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> David <princeofm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... In all seriousness though, I do like the fact that you guys
> > gave my story legs. Had there not been such a backlash with blogs and
> > web sites attempting to debunk my claim, as I was told by one of the
> > reporters this week, no one would have thought much of it. He said it
> > was the controversy that has made the story....his words not mine.
>
> Which reporter? From the chronology of the press coverage and internet
> reaction this is almost certainly untrue, unless he's referring to the
> Manx radio guy who played him for laughs in the recent interview.
Nah, it's just more crap from the sad windbag.
There was a brief mention of him here in July, but the actual scrutiny
and exposure on this group did not start until 20 December 2007 - in
*response* to an article in the Daily Telegraph the previous day (the
same date that Fox News poked fun at him). Before that date, the scam
had been covered by the Isle of Man press (October) and the Frederick
News-Post in Maryland (16 December), each as a result of Howe's own
self-serving PR. My website went up at the end of December, the time
that the press appearances stopped.
What gave it legs was Howe's increasingly frantic efforts to fight
against exposure, using multiple fake identities across use-net, lying
shamelessly, and all the while desparately courting publicity of any
kind.
I can only assume that his mother didn't pay him enough attention when
he was young.
MA-R