Howe prior fantasies / frauds (?)
Nathaniel Taylor
little more into Howe's background. The Manx claim seems to have broken
on the Isle of Man on 17 October 2007 on the website "Isle of Man Today"
--
2007-10-17. Isle of Man Today. "American claims to be King of the Isle
of Man." http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/American-claims-to-be-King.3388301.jp
In looking to trace how it spread to Man before that the best I can come
up with is a thread on manxforums.com begun 14 October 2007:
http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20628
--begun by a Manxman who must have found Howe's site via google.
Interestingly, other posters to this thread uncovered some interesting
Howe leads which show parallel behavior, in the world of fraudulent
martial arts instruction. A website devoted to discussion of fraudulent
martial arts is bullshido.net. In a series of threads there, Drew Howe
is exposed as a martial arts instructor with fraudulent credentials
(April 2004), then appears himself in December 2004 to 'come clean' as a
former fraud, admitting his mistakes and determined to turn over a new
leaf:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11682
thread: "What's Drew Howe up to These Days?," started 18 April 2004
(including discussion of a bogus academic degree, from a nonexistent
bible college)
and
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19824
thread: "Exposed Fake: Thank You!" started 22 December 2004
and
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19870
Thread: "Confessions of a former Bullshido artist," started 24 December
2004
Howe came up again on the bullshido.net site when the Vikesland story
hit:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47156
thread "Drew Howe up to his old tricks again. 'I want to be someone
important'", 14 Oct 2006
This last thread spans into this past October and includes crossposts
from the Manx forum people.
Neither the folks on the Manx forum nor on the 'bullshido' forum mince
words.
There are some choice tidbits there. One that has stuck with me (from
Drew's own mouth):
"I'm here to tell you guys, there are way more frauds out there than you
realize, way more."
This whole thing exposes interesting parallels between the world of
bogus martial arts credentials and the world of fake titles & honors.
Apparently they are both important to Drew Howe, both personally and
insofar as he has sought to make money by them.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Greg
What I'm having trouble with in all this [reporting] is, if you're not
going to follow through with more media exposure to lay out all of the
facts as yourself and MA-R have revealed them on a substantially
larger format, then, nobody's the wiser... There must be, what, ten
people that frequent these three or four forums, and there is no
substantial print media to speak of on this subject. So it's really
up to you to take the responsibility for bringing this and other
stories to the authorities through media presures to serve as a road
marker for the public, the would be 'claimants' and any and all
issuers of said materials. Regulation is the key. Otherwise your
just whistling in the wind.
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> Interestingly, other posters to this thread uncovered some interesting
> Howe leads which show parallel behavior, in the world of fraudulent
> martial arts instruction.
Nat
Thank you for drawing our attention to the scale of his prior
activities.
I particularly like the explicit admissions of fraud for financial
gain by David Drew Howe (posting as 'Reformed One') on this forum.
On 22 December 2004 at 4.44 pm (edited at 6.14 pm) he posted the
following under the thread he initiated under the heading 'Exposed
Fake: Thank you':
"Hello to all.
"Starting many years ago, I began training in the martial arts with
various instructors, some legit and others who had questionable
backgrounds. In any case, I have to say that I adopted some of the
habits, good and bad, from my instructors. One of the bad habits was
to exaggerate my background and training and to over promote myself as
an expert as a cheap ego boost. I'm not proud of this, it is just
something that I did and I want to be honest about it.
Well, I got called out for what I was doing on this forum....and
rightly so. I was called a fraud, a fake, a McDojo and a range of
other things on this forum...and a few others. This was for attempting
to pass myself off for something that I was clearly not...and you the
experts knew the truth. In the face of being exposed and other
threats, I pulled my site and advertising down, and I closed the doors
to my school -- after refunding every penny to the handful of students
that I had.
...
"In closing, I thank you all here for exposing me for what I was. You
helped me put an end to believing my own BS and forced me to stop. It
was embarrassing at first... But, it was a liberating experience and
has helped to put some of the bad examples that I had to rest once and
for all.
Depending on the response, I may tell you all who I am. But, I really
prefer to remain somewhat anonymous until I see some of your
responses. Sometimes it is better to let a dead dog stay down. Just
know I am grateful for the help.
----------added-----------
Sincerely,
Drew Howe
-----------------------------"
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19824
And there's this gem by Howe dated 22 December 2004 at 11.54 pm:
"It is embarrassing what people, like me, try and pass off...and the
scams that they will pull on the unsuspecting public. I've learned a
lot, and I know a lot about this kind of thing."
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19824&page=3
And then on 27 December 2004 at 03:24 pm he posted a further
admission:
"Me buying certificates and misrepresenting myself as an expert in
combat for profit only, is a selfish act and also a stupid one."
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19885&page=3
I have taken full copies of each of these statements, as Howe has a
habit of trying to edit his posts away. If he puts in hand his
threats to sue those who criticise him for libel, eg on Wikipedia at
the foot of this page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newguy34
these admissions of fraud will be of considerable interest.
What does he possibly think he will gain from his current scam, with
its fixation for obtaining publicity? Hopefully the scrutiny he has
consequently obtained will "help... put an end to [Howe] believing
[his] own BS and force [him] to stop".
MA-R
Greg
Not likely. You guys have no juice.
StephenP
Wheels may already be moving, I don't know for sure. However, you too
can make the appropriate complaint to relevant US authorities.
Yours aye
Stephen
Nathaniel Taylor
<9f31c590-d7e6-4a5f...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
> Greg
>
> Wheels may already be moving, I don't know for sure. However, you too
> can make the appropriate complaint to relevant US authorities.
One thing Greg has mentioned is essentially "why do it here? Publish in
print." Well, the logical venue for further publication on this (which
is not notable by US popular press standards) is in existing periodical
media devoted to genealogy. This is where I frequently publish.
Problem is, such organs are quarterly, with ordinarily at least a
four-month lead time to appearance in print. Usenet is useful for
trading sources and interpretations; people will have to wait for the
next step and accusing others of having 'no juice' is a tad silly.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Greg
> In article
> <9f31c590-d7e6-4a5f-8f75-2ac5adf7e...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
A tad silly, I don't think so. Your efforts thus far have produced
little results or this knid of thing would not continue on. On the
other hand Sean Murphy wrote a book and obviously worked very hard to
to bring to light some of the iregularities with the Irish heraldic
community and with great effect. At the very least the breaks were
put on and now the entire system is undergoing change; and for the
better I hope.
What I see here is silly name calling, inappropriate and narrow
exposure of any conflict of fact: this type thing appears in no
heraldic journels that I'm aware of, nor has there been any effort
made to establish any sort of organization whose mission it is to keep
these issues in the public light.
So when I say you et al have no juice Nat, I know exactly what I'm
talking about: some people may not like Sean Murphy or believe that he
may have some other 'motive' which I doubt, but the man has juice: he
gets things done. It isn't difficult to set up a network whereby
cowans can be made to be somewhat radioactive and easily exposed for
the good of the cause of credibility. So I would at the very least
think twice about what you think I might be saying and instead
concentrate more on what you guys a really doing with this stuff...
Remember: there is a very small portion of the population anywhere
(least of all in the US) that pays any attention to this stuff at
all. It's viewd as an antiquated arcane and rather esoteric
continuation of feudalism wherein anybody can do anything.
I'm sure that there would be many associations willing to donate to
the cause of right in these instances, and I would be first among them.
Nathaniel Taylor
<fc3f782b-9747-479c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <scot...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 13 Jan, 05:41, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9f31c590-d7e6-4a5f-8f75-2ac5adf7e...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > StephenP <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Wheels may already be moving, I don't know for sure. However, you too
> > > can make the appropriate complaint to relevant US authorities.
> >
> > One thing Greg has mentioned is essentially "why do it here? Publish in
> > print." Well, the logical venue for further publication on this (which
> > is not notable by US popular press standards) is in existing periodical
> > media devoted to genealogy. This is where I frequently publish.
> > Problem is, such organs are quarterly, with ordinarily at least a
> > four-month lead time to appearance in print. Usenet is useful for
> > trading sources and interpretations; people will have to wait for the
> > next step and accusing others of having 'no juice' is a tad silly.
>
> A tad silly, I don't think so. Your efforts thus far have produced
> little results or this knid of thing would not continue on. On the
> other hand Sean Murphy wrote a book and obviously worked very hard to
> to bring to light some of the iregularities with the Irish heraldic
> community and with great effect. At the very least the breaks were
> put on and now the entire system is undergoing change; and for the
> better I hope.
Sean very diligently exposed the negligence (not to say the connivance)
of a whole government agency, or of its authorities. That was certainly
quite praiseworthy. By the way, Sean's efforts took rather longer than
the month that the Howe story has been around, to get off the ground.
In contrast to the MacCarthy case, the Howe episode hasn't implicated
any bigger fish--certainly no one acting on the part of his or any
government.
I have no legal expertise, but I'm not sure whether Howe has broken any
US laws or even exposed himself to civil tort litigation for fraud.
Perhaps consumer complaints could be made to commercial watchdog
agencies (Better Business Bureau etc.), but I am not sure of the legal
standing of such organizations. And my very, very basic layman's
understanding of US tort law suggests that to be taken to court for
fraudulent sale of bogus titles, Howe would have to be sued by or on
behalf of someone who had bought a title and then claimed to have been
defrauded.
And I am not sure about venue either: I believe it has been shown that
the other people through or with whom he is attempting to sell titles
are domiciled in Panama and in the UK.
> What I see here is silly name calling, inappropriate and narrow
> exposure of any conflict of fact.
Well, that is what it seems is going on in Wikipedia--an interesting
experiment because Howe's claims have so far been protected by certain
quirks of the institutional Wikipedia culture, paramount among them the
doctrine of 'neutrality' effectively keeping an unsupported claim alive.
This directly contradicts the methodological rule in genealogy that the
burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim to genealogical descent
(let alone any constitutional or legal claims deriving from descent).
Traffic here on rec.heraldry has differed from what is on Wikipedia.
At any rate, writing about the claim for published media is probably the
only way to counter this current case, and the response which suits my
own skills. Usenet, and Michael's website --
-- have been convenient repositories and exchange fora for information
relevant to this case.
> ...this type thing appears in no heraldic journels that I'm aware of
This specific case? It's too new to be mentioned in journals yet. Is
there a genealogical or heraldic weekly somewhere that might take a
piece on this? I agree that such journals do not spend much time
exposing frauds and fantasies, and perhaps there is a psychological
reason for it: journals covering the field do not want to give the
impression that the field is populated by kooks.
> nor has there been any effort
> made to establish any sort of organization whose mission it is to keep
> these issues in the public light.
This is interesting. What sort of organization do you propose? Why not
start it?
> So when I say you et al have no juice Nat, I know exactly what I'm
> talking about: some people may not like Sean Murphy or believe that he
> may have some other 'motive' which I doubt, but the man has juice: he
> gets things done.
I accurately surmised what you meant, and said that it takes time to do
the things Sean has done.
> It isn't difficult to set up a network whereby
> cowans can be made to be somewhat radioactive and easily exposed for
> the good of the cause of credibility.
Is this 'network' similar to the organization which you propose earlier?
Please elaborate on it.
> Remember: there is a very small portion of the population anywhere
> (least of all in the US) that pays any attention to this stuff at
> all. It's viewd as an antiquated arcane and rather esoteric
> continuation of feudalism wherein anybody can do anything.
> I'm sure that there would be many associations willing to donate to
> the cause of right in these instances, and I would be first among them.
This seems self-contradictory:
1. Very small population interested in this sort of thing (too esoteric).
2. Many associations willing to donate to the 'cause of right'.
So which is it? There are people willing to donate to the cause of
exposing genealogical fraud, and the sale of titles? Will they pay
writers for exposing frauds? If so, contact me offlist. I have begun
to write an article on this episode for the American genealogical press.
The typical lead time for publication of such an article is many months.
Will they finance legal expertise for filing a criminal complaint, ori
initiating civil tort litigation? That might be a path for others to
consider.
Now, back to gathering information. One query I posted several days ago
has so far gone unanswered:
Can anyone cite the criminal prosecution of, or civil tort litigation
against, ANYONE in any jurisdiction for fraudulent selling of titles of
nobility? Can anyone cite the cases (whether or not they resulted in
any criminal prosecution or civil litigation) whereby title sellers used
the ruse of a _London Gazette_ notice to support the existence, and
their claim to ownership, of a title for sale?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> I have taken full copies of each of these statements, as Howe has a
> habit of trying to edit his posts away. If he puts in hand his
> threats to sue those who criticise him for libel, eg on Wikipedia at
> the foot of this page here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newguy34
>
> these admissions of fraud will be of considerable interest.
Oh, what a surprise. Howe edited away each of these posts this
morning.
Luckily, I have kept printed, archived and digital photographic copies
of them, so they are preserved for posterity. Each of the three
mediums is date- and time-stamped, so they will be great for
affidavits if the need arises: lovely confessions, straight from the
horse's mouth.
mj...@btinternet.com
> In article
> <9f31c590-d7e6-4a5f-8f75-2ac5adf7e...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
Nat, don't worry about 'greg'; it's just a wannabe troll.
MA-R
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maundy Gregory was prosecuted for selling titles, convicted and
jailed. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maundy_Gregory
Graham
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Maundy Gregory was prosecuted for selling titles, convicted and
> jailed. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maundy_Gregory
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or rather for offering to procure the grant of a title for money. I
don't think what Mr. Howe is up to amounts to attempting to procure a
grant of a title of honour, it is more like attempting to obtain money
by deception (i.e. fraud) I would say.
Graham
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, first let me say with regard to MA-R's last breath of reason:
there you have it. My point has been very well made.
As to my points with regard to having an effect: Nat, you said
yourself that Sean Murphy acted very diligently to drive his case home
and have the desired effect. Howe's case may be new but the efforts
made by people like him and people like yourselves is not. What these
little web outbursts accomplish is nothing more than a rabbit hunt,
whose enemies have effectively driven away people like MA-R with
usenet sabotage that happens daily on this site and any discussions
are lost.
Now to your interpretation that I have made a contradiction with
respect to numbers involved: off the top of my head I can probably
name about fifteen or twenty people that frequent this and other
resources of information on heraldry and titular interest. (the word
titular is used advisedly). Yet I'll bet these twenty people have
links to an told amount of genealogical and heraldic expertise that
would be very interested to support an effort whereby the millions of
people who contact such organizations could be a bit more informed. (I
am going to be very interested to see how Ireland winds up and what
caveats are placed into the system aimed at exactly what we're talking
about).
Now as to what legal trespasses have occurred, like you, I can't say
with any certainty either. I know that the fraud of Family Name coats
of arms sell out in the open in the US, and anybody can sell a can of
peas with a new label on it that says "Canopy" to anyone and get away
with it. The trick is to set up an information source that is bigger
than the offending party. I have done several experiments on my own
with these well known coat of arms gamers, and in every case they get
swept right into admitting that what have is nothing more than fakery,
and I have kept all the documents to back it all up. So I know how
easy it really is to tip these people over. But you might remember
that Michael Andrews-Reading last year, made a ridiculous claim that
he had worked as a prosecutor in some federal judiciary capacity in
Australia I believe, and yet he apparently has no legal opinion to
offer in these matters: he just makes statements like the one above...
Now, that's expertise yes?
His own attempt at web design is rudimentary at best; he knows nothing
about tables or vector graphics and even less about simply done:
"align left". His outline is boring with no set-up with regard to
referencing the phenomenon as it is known or tracked, therefore the
public at large, who should be the target audience are left out of the
loop from the beginning! He has offered up this sort of thing before
and it goes nowhere: it has no influence - no effect - no juice...
(therefore Nat your summation is all wet).
I offer no organization. I am attempting to stimulate those who have
this drive to say something. I have engaged the media on several
occasions in my life, so I know how to get a ball rolling. The trick
is to attach it to something that has some meritorious value at the
end. (the anti-war movement for instance).
As far as who is what on this forum, I think the posts speak for
themselves.
mj...@btinternet.com
> In article
> <9f31c590-d7e6-4a5f-8f75-2ac5adf7e...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
And, of course, those demanding 'public action' have no idea what may
or may not be going on behind the scenes. I, for one, am as keen as
anyone for the truth about this matter to come out, and I have
invested a considerable amount of my time and energy into facilitating
a public debate on the matter. I am not surprised that this scrutiny
doesn't meet with the approval of its subject; I am slightly surprised
that anyone else who actually cared about the matter would condemn it
for being insufficient or dilatory, but then I tend not to measure
facts by the size of their left-hand margin.
One of the benefits of a discussion group such as this one is that it
brings together both those with expertise and those with interests in
the matter at hand; views can be exchanged, theories tested and
(hopefully) efforts pooled. While I don't necessarily agree that
either you, Nat, or I have a special responsibility in relation to
dealing with this matter, the support of members of this group is both
valuable and appreciated - especially when it takes the form of
reasonable criticism. Sniping and sour grapes, on the other hand, are
merely a distraction.
I don't know whether the media will continue to take an interest in
this particular case or, if so, whether they will be interested in
examining the facts rather than merely repeating claims deemed
newsworthy or laughable in their own right. I do know that solid
research and proper groundwork are vital when approaching cases of
this nature and that hasty press releases and short-term approaches to
publicity are often dangerously counter-productive - as Howe is no
doubt no finding to his own embarrassment and cost.
I don't know whether there have been successful prosecutions for the
specific activity Howe is currently engaged in. I do know that there
are many successful prosecutions for fraud, and I know that these are
not started and wrapped up inside of a couple of months. Some of my
successful professional cases have taken upwards of ten years. Quick
headlines are much less important than ensuring the truth prevails.
Other members of this group can make their own minds up about where
they stand. They may choose to support the enquiries and discussion;
they may decide to ignore them. They may even decide to bad-mouth
them - but in doing so, they should understand that the only person
ultimately assisted by that is Howe.
MA-R
Nathaniel Taylor
<d17bb130-bb2f-499b...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Well said Michael. But I also think that Greg may be onto something
about the need for a durable & disinterested (i.e. not connected with
any competing effort to sell or transfer titles) clearinghouse for
tracking the identities and modus operandi of fantasists--especially
those with things to sell. Guy Stair-Sainty's website has a good,
erudite section on fantasy royalty, but the pages don't focus on the
fraudulent activities for gain of such people, nor on title sellers who
do not themselves pretend to be fontes honorum.
And thank you, Graham, for mentioning Maundy Gregory: but that was for
'sale' of 'real' peerages through government. I am interested in
private individuals selling bogus titles, or 'feudal' titles or
lordships of the manor of questionable legality or provenance. For all
the opprobrium they may have received in a fringe forum like this one,
who has actually suffered legally for this? Andre 'de Guise'?
Poidimani? MacCarthy? (was he convicted of crimes and/or found liable
in civil lawsuits?) LaFosse? What about the people who have just set
themselves up as merchants of such things without pretending to be a
fons honorum themselves?
And who initiated the legal-notice ruse? I am having little luck
key-word searching rec.heraldry for prior use of the ruse of publishing
a claim to an incorporeal hereditament (lordship of the manor or what
have you) and then claiming the absence of challenge to it as proof of
title to the property. But I distinctly remember reading here about
this method. Anyone?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> And who initiated the legal-notice ruse? I am having little luck
> key-word searching rec.heraldry for prior use of the ruse of publishing
> a claim to an incorporeal hereditament (lordship of the manor or what
> have you) and then claiming the absence of challenge to it as proof of
> title to the property. But I distinctly remember reading here about
> this method. Anyone?
Nat
try here:
MA-R
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you Nat for the support with regard to my point. A clearing
house is a good way to put it: something that everybody can plug
into. It's not about grabbing a quick headline at all, but rather
setting up a system whereby anyone interested can learn about this
sort of thing and keep up with the latest scams. I'm very surprised
that there is not more on the legal front from the authorities. The
idea that some can place an add, particularly in the area of the UK is
ridiculous.
Also, I like the idea of neutrality. There is some trading of
baronies for instance that although legal, borders on the incredible
with regard to the subject titles etc and the public really needs to
see what the differences are.
Nathaniel Taylor
<b556893a-5aa5-47fb...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <scot...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Thank you Nat for the support with regard to my point. A clearing
> house is a good way to put it: something that everybody can plug
> into. It's not about grabbing a quick headline at all, but rather
> setting up a system whereby anyone interested can learn about this
> sort of thing and keep up with the latest scams. I'm very surprised
> that there is not more on the legal front from the authorities. The
> idea that some can place an add, particularly in the area of the UK is
> ridiculous.
> Also, I like the idea of neutrality. There is some trading of
> baronies for instance that although legal, borders on the incredible
> with regard to the subject titles etc and the public really needs to
> see what the differences are.
The current thing that comes closest is the Earl of Bradford's website --
-- but that, while an enjoyable read and a good repository of
information on specific frauds, could be more comprehensive. I wonder
whether anyone has proposed to help him in expanding / reorganizing this
site to be more comprehensive in tracking current vendors of fraudulent
or fantasy titles or lordships. My interest in this whole episode is
how the continued emergence, and apparent immunity, of fantasist /
fraudulent title merchants gives legitimate disinterested curiosity
about such topics -- even genealogy generally -- a bad odor by
association.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
StephenP
Where Howe is at a slight disadvantage to the other luminaries is that
people picked up on his activities almost from day one. Furthermore,
he has caused a number of people to be disgruntled with his claim and
so take independent action one way or another. Thus he is under close
scrutiny from a number of directions and nations.
I think he now quite aware of that.
Yours aye
Stephen
Greg
Yes Nat,
Richard Bradford is a very good guy and well versed and intentioned in
the matter of titles etc; good bad or indifferent. He and I have
corrisponded several times over the years and we agree 100%. His
rather low profile suggests two things: He has a limited amount of
time as I remember, and secondly there is a limited number of people
who are even aware of what this subject is. And your mentioning the
dark cloud that hangs over genealogy is exactly my point - well made
again. Thank you. I've tried for years to encourage some of the more
creditable folks who are tied to organizations of interest to police
their own sidelines, but this 'encouragement', and not just by me
either, has been met with disregard and hostility, and yet, here we
are again...
The Riff-Raff know they can get away with this stuff, so they push it
as far as they can, make their money and off they go. It is percisely
this type of ignornace of the issue which has Irish heraldry on the
edge of a cliff.
Nobody even considered that someone might notice what was really going
on, and at $5,000 a throw - people are rightly upset.
This avenue of interest if full of history and is wonderful way to
explore western Europe and the individual's releationship therein. It
is however to often left to go over the top, and hence the general
public views anything to do with it as some sort of fakery.
To me it seems very easy. I can't understand why the 'professional
people' haven't been on this by now.