Benny Smith is a fraud

[1a2b3c]

http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/10/3f86484674de4

What do you do when you are about to lose a tenured job, your employer is investigating your fraudulent research and you've alienated a small cadre of supporters in an academic scandal over the explosive topic of guns?

Perhaps you invent an online persona to defend your work.

Since Emory launched that investigation in the spring of 2002, the most vocal and intemperate online supporter of Bellesiles has been a man who goes by the handle "Benny Smith." Smith has posted seven times on the Wheel's Web site and on countless occasions at History News Network, a site run by George Mason University, at hnn.us. On our site, Smith identifies himself as a Detroit-based database administrator.

In a Dec. 15 post to an HNN discussion board, Smith wrote that Bellesiles should have "retained appropriate counsel early on." Mysteriously, Smith knew both that the professor had recently hired a lawyer and that he was previously without one. Remarkably, no newspaper had reported on Bellesiles' legal representation before (or after) Smith made his post. It's peculiar that someone with Smith's credentials would have any knowledge of the matter, particularly someone who insisted in a March 20 HNN post: "I do not know Bellesiles personally."

It's telling that whenever Smith is questioned, he disappears or dodges, occasionally choosing to rant about the National Rifle Association and partisan politics that he claims ruined Bellesiles. For the record, I've called all of the listed Benjamin Smiths in the Detroit area. None had heard of Emory, much less Bellesiles.

As for Bellesiles, who also uses a Yahoo! e-mail account these days, he did not respond to questions for this column.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that one of two scenarios exists: Either Bellesiles and Smith are in cahoots and Bellesiles is using Smith as a mouthpiece in order to garner self-respect in the wake of his downfall, or Benny Smith is Bellesiles.

Either scenario is a disappointing turn for an already sad story.

This comes straight out of Emory. Too funny. I am just gonna have to mention old Benny Smith every time i see the Mary Rosh thrown out. Atleast Mary Rosh didnt loose a job because of fraud.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. This little missive...

Ain't worth shit. Period.

[MrBenchley]

10. A student newspaper

outright lying....good thing the RKBA crowd isn't getting desperate, or anything (snicker)

Be sure and click on the comment beneath by the actual Benny Smith, which reveals what a piece of shit this amateur attempt at "journalism" is.

[hansberrym]

2. Benny might also be Judge REINHARDT

of the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals.

He is also well known for spinning a few tall tales such as "quoting"
John Adams as evidence that Adams did not support individuals using arms.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/j_adams.htm


And judge Reinhardt has a stake in propping up Bellesiles since Judge R relied on Bellesiles expert commentary in the Silveira decision.

Judge Reinhardt's fraud involves a knowing and conscious decision to deceive the public in order to deprive them of a constitutional right.

[funkyflathead]

4. He used BELLESILES in his decison?

Your joking right???

This oughtta be investigated.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

8. Yes he did

He went back several months later and edited out the cites though.

It was very humurous at the time.

[hansberrym]

9. Yeah, Judge Reinhardt cites Bellesiles twice in the

Silveira decision handed down in Dec 2002, then later he submitted an edited version removing the Bellesiles citations and replacing them with other sources. His removing of the Bellesiles citations is a step in the right direction, but the Silveira opinion remains full of BS. And yes, it should be investigated for the outright fraud that it is.

Here's another example:

(from Silveira)
" The Pennsylvania minority, so frequently cited by the proponents of the individual rights view, also used language markedly different from that of the Second Amendment. Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment,which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment, would have unambiguously established a personal right to possess arms for personal purposes: “o law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . .”
(end quote)


What Judge Reinhardt cut out of the original text of the address of the Pennsyvania Minority is this:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and thier own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and..." (the portion cited by Judge Reinhardt follows )


Of course had Judge Reinhardt included the phrase "the people have a right to bear arms" in the quotation, his claim that the proposed amendment's language was "markedly different" than the Second Amendment would have been laughable on it face. Instead Judge Reinhardt chose the dishonest route of making a partial quotation in order to deceive the reader(as he did with the quote from John Adams).

[LARED]

3. Very Interesting n/t

[Wickerman]

5. This article exceeds copyright rules, please edit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#copyright

Don't post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs.

[MrBenchley]

6. It's also a dupe of something

that was posted months ago.....

[Superfly]

7. Can you, as a mod, edit it so it complies?

NT

[Wickerman]

11. Nope - time had expired - Locking

Feel free to repost the correctly edited piece if anyone feels there is still some life left in the discussion.

thanks,

LB