Fraudulent clone of Contreras

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Alan Contreras, Mar 10, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Alan Contreras

    Alan Contreras New Member

    I am informed that someone has falsely registered under my name on another degree information discussion list and posted photos of people. I am not on any other list, did not post on any other list and will not post there. Anything posted there under my name is a false and potentially fraudulent post.

    I won't waste any time messing around with it, but I am surprised that the listowners would allow fraudulent posts under my name, knowing that they assume sigificant legal risks by doing so.
     
  2. italiansupernova

    italiansupernova New Member

    Alan,

    In two words: "That sucks!" The shills will stoop to any level they must to flaunt their degree mills. It is quite unfortunate and I hope that good prevails in the end.

    Best of luck!
     
  3. Alan Contreras

    Alan Contreras New Member

    What it means is that the listowners are prepared to allow blatantly dishonest activity on their list, which suggests that the listowners are simply diploma mill owners in sadly tattered drag.

    There is also a red-eyed, foam-lipped, panting desperation about the whole idea. For what purpose would anyone falsely claim to be me except to discredit me? And yet I as a person do not matter, I am simply the hand that moves the state's pen. It is the law that matters. Were I squashed by a truck tomorrow, my successor would smite the rodents just as my predecessor did. And no conceivable legitimate organization would consider my reputation damaged by the actions of perps.

    Finally, I personally pay nothing for the legal defenses of my work enforcing the statute. Yes, indeed, I smell the sweat of overheated rats sliding about in a curiously waterlogged vessel, lashing out at anything that moves.
     
  4. jugador

    jugador New Member

    It should be a breach of federal law to impersonate someone online. It happened to me on a forum a couple of years ago and caused me all kinds of trouble. The impersonator was able to mimic my alias. All this is because the font the forum gave identical renditions of the number "1" and the letter "l" (lower case L). Unfortunately, even if such a US law were passed, it would have no effect on foreign posters. After all, it is the "Worldwide" web.
     
  5. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    A contra-Contreras can't be good.

    My name (actual name) was once hijacked in a political forum. There was nothing I could do but email the regular posters with an explanation. Any disclaimer within the forum would have been futile as the imposter would then have had a ball in countering my disclaimer.

    I never considered any legal actions against the forum but would still consider some illegal actions against the imposter.
     
  6. My image would actually probably improve here if someone hijacked my handle.....

    Just kidding!

    Sorry to hear about that Alan - keep up the good work and the good fight....
     
  7. russ

    russ New Member

    What are you going to do, Alan, fine them $25,000 or threaten to send them to jail? That did not get you very far with another person you went after, did it?

    Who really cares? Anyone can assume anyone's name on the internet. I sincerely doubt it is some conspiracy to damage your reputation, whatever it may be.
     
  8. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Oh, russ. What're we ever gonna' do with you.

    This kind of shameful, hurtful commentary is why you're universally reviled around here, russ. Have you not figured that out yet?

    You say you're not a shill for unaccredited schools, but here you are taking pot shots for their own sake at their most high-profile enemy.

    And, actually, russ, all kinds of postings in forums are actionable in a court of law. Don't assume that because the attorney general of Oregon had no spine and let Alan down, the same would be true of his own attorney. Were I he, and knowing that you're in my state, I'd be tempted to have my lawyer go after you just for sport.
     
  9. russ

    russ New Member

    Re: Oh, russ. What're we ever gonna' do with you.

    I am sure Alan is a big boy and can take care of himself. Much worse has been said about me on this site and no one ever tried to stop that, not even you, in fact just the opposite. You piled on with the rest of them. If Alan wants to sue me for mentioning some of his mistakes, he is welcome to. I am a big boy too.

    No, I don't put Alan on a pedestal as you do because I don't agree with his job description. If Alan was honest, he would admit that what he is trying to do is impossible with his resources and in my opinion, totally unnecessary. We have budget needs in Oregon for schools and other necessities but having a degree police force should not be one of them.
     
  10. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Fingers crossed!

    Because you have no friends (other than, perhaps mill shills and trolls) and aren't respected here (other than, perhaps, by mill shills and trolls). And I'm not saying that with anger in my... er... well... I started to write "voice," but I guess it would by typing fingers. But I think you get my point. In fact, I just wrote some nice things about you in another thread... which I'm sure you'll read.

    Because you came here and posited ridiculousness, right out of the gate. You still don't seem to get it... though I agree more strongly than ever with whoever it was who suggested that he had high hopes for you and hoped you'd come around. We've had alot of that, actually around here, russ. You wouldn't be the first... though I'd delight in it most greatly if you were the next. And it's because of the very things I wrote -- the nice things to which I referred, above -- that I feel that way. I just don't understand how you've become so misguided. So smart you are. But so misguided.

    I'm sure he doesn't. I was just making a point. (Or.. well... hell, I dunno... who knows... maybe he does... but I'm just assuming he doesn't.)

    Please, russ... I don't put Alan on a pedestal. Search on my username and go back a ways. You'll find that I argued with him a bunch of times. There's a huge aspect of Oregon's way of doing what it's doing that give me grave constitutional concerns. And if you go back and look at some of those threads, you'll find that I argued vigorously with Alan about it... to the point, as I recall, that I sent him a private email or two and reminded him that it was the issue, and not him, that had me all worked-up; and that I agreed, to the depths of my soul, that Oregon's categorically right to do what it's doing... and that he's the absolutely right guy to be doing it for that state; but that there's an aspect of Oregon's approach -- particularly with regard to the criminality issues -- that give me great pause. I'd just about kill to have someone from that state ask me to re-write the thing so that it will still accomplish Oregon's laudible goals, but will not trample, along the way, on the constitutional rights of Oregonians and others.

    As an Oregonian, I'd like to see you help out, too... but you're sure makin' it hard for anyone to want your input. I wish you could see and understand why.

    Hell, he didn't write the damned thing! He's just doing what he's been charged to do. He's a public servant. That's what public servants do. As it happens, he personally agrees with what he's been charged with doing... heck, he might even be an anti-diploma mill activist or something, as a private citizen, if he didn't have this job. So I'm not saying that Alan's some kind of unwilling puppet who just does what his job description says whether he wants to or not. But as a public servant, if he's to adequately honor his agreed-upon obligation to his state, when there are "whether he wants to or not" things that come across his desk, he does them. That's what people who understand the notion of "fiduciary responsibility" do. Alan is a good public servant. Moreover, he's a decent and honorable man. That's just inescapably clear from his various writings, testimony and actions. If you had ever given him half a chance, I suspect you'd have discovered that, sooner or later, on your own.


    See... right there.. stop. Alan is honest... make no mistake about that. When you start sentences like that, it discredits you more than him. You grasp that, right?

    Hmm. [sigh] Okay. That's valid. It's unsound, I would argue, but it's valid. It's also a little confrontationally stated... which is part of the reason, I would argue, why so many around here are put off by you.

    But I still have great hope for you... I really do. Seriously.

    Alan... hmm.... how do I want to say this...

    That Alan is in charge of, as you call it, "the degree police" does not make him the person who mandated that "degree police" were necessary in the first place. You make it sound like this was a thing of his sole creation. I'm sorry that you don't seem to see the need for a means by which citizens and employers can be protected from the misrepresentations of those sporting degrees from diploma mills or, if not strictly diploma mills, then sub-standard schools offering more or less worthless credentials. And by "worthless," I mean probably the same thing you would mean if you were asked to honestly search your soul and to imagine a degree that wasn't really worked-for very hard and required relatively little of its holder in the way of rigor.

    russ... you're a smart guy. You can imagine the potential harm, can't you? You really want a nurse stickin' a needle in your arm when she got her BSN from a place like Kennedy-Western (that is... if KWU actually offered such a degree... it's just an example in the form of a rhetorical question just to make my point). You live in Oregon. I don't know if you're an employer but, if not, imagine that you were and you had been burned by a diploma mill degree or two; and the knucklehead you hired who had it not only couldn't do what his "degree" suggested he should have been able to do, but until you finally figured out that he couldn't, he so damaged your relationship with your top customer that you may not make enough money this year to keep your daugher in college. Wouldn't it be nice if you knew, when you were interviewing the guy, that it was more likely than not that that his degree was legit because the stakes if it weren't were just too high? Of course it wouldn't mean that you wouldn't go ahead and check the guy out -- including his degree -- but there's a huge difference between knowing you have to do a little double-checking just to make sure the guy's degree is legit, and having to be on some kind of "threat level red" alert all the damned time so you won't ever get hurt again.

    That's part of government's role, russ... to protect the citizenry from inordinate threat. You're absolutely right that your state -- that all states -- could probably better spend that money on more obvious things like schools. I get that. And I agree. You're absolutely correct. But every state -- or, better yet, the federal government -- should be doing what Oregon's doing... maybe not exactly the same way... who knows.. but at least in spirit, every state should be doing something like it to protect employers from phony degrees, patients from phony nurses and other professionals, government from phony public servants, congregants from phony preachers, and so on and so on and so on. Or do you propose that we all adopt and every man for himself philosophy in this country, and that everyone just wears a six-shooter like we did 150 years ago and leave it at that? I know that's not how you feel. You're too smart for that.

    So why do you chastise people like Alan Contreras just for doing their jobs and therefore, being good public servants?

    If you don't like what he's doing, then get involved. Change the law so that his employer -- the state -- tells him to do something else; something more in keeping with what you think he should be doing instead. That's, in part, what democracy is all about.

    And it's a crying shame... and I really mean this... when a smart guy like you wastes his time making it personal, and being hateful, instead of getting out there and participating in governmnent and working for the very kind of changes that you've stated here you'd like to see.

    I wish I lived in Oregon and you'd let me take you to lunch a few times. I'd turn you into a grassroots activist so fast you wouldn't know what hit you. Then maybe you'd appreciate the hard work of faithful public servants like Alan Contreras. Oh, you might still disagree with what he's been charged with doing... but at least you'd not hate him, personally, for doing it. And then you'd finally get it.

    At that point you'd be a better person. You'd like you more. We'd like you more. You'd begin to see the folly of those who promote clearly sub-standard institutions; and you'd lose your pack mentality and would stop posting in other forums where mill shills run the place; and would stop thinking of them as credible.

    And then people here would respect you... big time.

    Believe it.

    I can't wait.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Oh, russ. What're we ever gonna' do with you.

    Nope. Wrong. You don't get it. There is no "you" here. There is just an alias. Many people here uses aliases, but many others, like Alan, use their real names. When a one-issue, anonymous poster jumps on, there is no claim to being the victim of ad hominem comments. Especially from someone who hides behind his alias and slings them at will.
     
  12. Alan Contreras

    Alan Contreras New Member

    Russ has every right to be a frothing cave-troll who hates the Oregon law and there is no basis upon which I could or should sue him. Hell, I might even buy him lunch myself just because I know we'd have a good discussion. After all, I once had lunch with the lawyer for The Entity Called Berne University in a Senate cafeteria. We had a good discussion.

    I don't care who Russ is or who he represents. For all I know, he could be a lobbyist for Kennedy-Western or the Archbishop of Portland. I don't make decisions based on the sound of earth moving in the denser shrubbery.

    There is a difference between frothing trollism, which has a certain all-American robustness about it (have a good journey, Hunter Thompson), and the appropriation of someone's identity, which under certain conditions is a crime and is always subject to civil action if the likelihood of winning is good. I have turned this matter over to my legal counsel for a look.

    I appreciate the comments of those who understand the nature of public employment. I am hired to enforce laws that were written long before I arrived on the scene. The state legislature, elected by the people of Oregon, wrote the anti-diploma mill law on purpose. So far, they have not seen fit to repeal it. My job is to enforce it. Russ can tunnel on down to the capitol, leave his cave-troll mask at the door (that would be so very hard, wouldn't it?), and ask them to repeal it if he wants to.

    Russ likes to tap his brow-ridge for the one fact it contains and raise the fact that the state lost a degree-use case that began in early 2000. His glitter-eyed woofings about jail and $25,000 fines come from that era. He neglects to mention that the plaintiff spent half a million in legal fees (really) and won one dollar, and that the wording of the statute and the rules were changed in 2001 (two years before the case went to trial) to make sure nothing that stupid happened again - at my request.

    Finally, I recall that cave-trolls do not see very well, thus Russ may have missed my posting a while back in which I mentioned that ODA is funded almost entirely by schools and applicant fees. Very few of his tax dollars are spent by ODA, and I assure him that I spent his personal tax cent on wholesome activities.

    As a libertarian of sorts, I have some sympathy for those who want a sort of free market in degrees, provided that I, as an employer, have the right to say "your degree is not good enough." I have no great enthusiasm for our accreditation system, which is pretty minimal. I also think that requiring degrees for many jobs is unnecessary and should be changed. See my November essay in the Chronicle Review on this topic.

    But I was hired to kill rats (as defined by someone else)and I will kill them to the best of my ability.
     
  13. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Oh, russ. What're we ever gonna' do with you.

    A most excellent point! To emphasize the point, it would be impossible for an anonymous poster to ever win any lawsuit for libel. The very fact that one is anonymous would negate any ability to demonstrate defamation of character because an anonymous entity couldn't have their real reputation damaged since no one knows who they are and one's anonymous reputation is a non-entity and not protected from defamation.
     
  14. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Couldn't a' said it better...

    Ha! That was excellent, Alan. Really good.

    This is clearly a guy who needs no help from the likes of me in fending-off the the world's russ's.

    Still, I'm glad to have had the chance to register my support. I would like nothing more than for Oregon to finally get it just exactly right and fined-tuned; and then for it to begin really and truly enforcing with the vigor it deserves so that maybe it can develop an observable history, get fine-tuned again, and then maybe ultimately become some kind of model for other states -- states with Attorney General's offices with spines, that is.

    And make no mistake about it, Alan Contreras is the right guy to be at the helm of all that... the real Alan, I mean.

    (Hoo! Boy... my neck is hurting from looking up at Alan on that pedestal for so long. Gotta' go!)

    ;)
     
  15. russ

    russ New Member

    DesElms,

    I am an employer (who lives in Oregon) and it is up to me and my potential employee to decide whether I feel his/her degree is adequate for the task. I am not looking for the state to hold my hand and tell me whether someone is legit or not. I can figure that out on my own with my own resources. I am a firm believer in free markets and the less government interference the better. I also believe in "caveat emptor" and if I hire someone who messes up my relationship with a good client (which could happen with or without an accredited degree) then I take responsibility for that and pay the price.

    Most occupations do not require a degree to be competent (as our discussion about attorneys in California demonstrates) so the argument about medical personnel or critical skills (such as an airline pilot) are only a small minority of occupations. That critical skill minority usually always requires a test for competency (such as a FAA exam for a pilot) which eliminates the possibility that someone will be working in that capacity without the necessary skills. So when we talk about someone being in danger because of a KW degree, the probability of that happening is very slight.

    For that very small amount of occupations where the education of an degree is critical to public safety and where professional licensing test is not already in place, then I could see a state enforcing an minimal level of quality for the degree whether accredited or unaccredited. That, in my humble opinion, is the only possible reason for Alan's existence. But it is not much of a reason.
     
  16. russ

    russ New Member

    DesElms,

    I am an employer (who lives in Oregon) and it is up to me and my potential employee to decide whether I feel his/her degree is adequate for the task. I am not looking for the state to hold my hand and tell me whether someone is legit or not. I can figure that out on my own with my own resources. I am a firm believer in free markets and the less government interference the better. I also believe in "caveat emptor" and if I hire someone who messes up my relationship with a good client (which could happen with or without an accredited degree) then I take responsibility for that and pay the price.

    Most occupations do not require a degree to be competent (as our discussion about attorneys in California demonstrates) so the argument about medical personnel or critical skills (such as an airline pilot) are only a small minority of occupations. That critical skill minority usually always requires a test for competency (such as a FAA exam for a pilot) which eliminates the possibility that someone will be working in that capacity without the necessary skills. So when we talk about someone being in danger because of a KW degree, the probability of that happening is very slight.

    For that very small amount of occupations where the education of an degree is critical to public safety and where professional licensing test is not already in place, then I could see a state enforcing an minimal level of quality for the degree whether accredited or unaccredited. That, in my humble opinion, is the only possible reason for Alan's existence. But it is not much of a reason.
     
  17. russ

    russ New Member

    Re: Fingers crossed!

    DesElms,

    Lunch sounds great but I think you may exaggerate your proselytizing skills. I am always trying to be a better person so I appreciate your offer to help anyway. I agree with you that Alan is doing what he is paid to do and did not create the law (but I still think he enjoys it too much). It really is the law or statute that I disagree with and I hope that when they revise it (as required by the terms of their settlement with KW), they will narrow the scope to those occupations that truly require high quality postgraduate work for the public's safety.
     
  18. russ

    russ New Member

    Alan,

    Since you are addressing me indirectly let me answer you back directly. No, I am not going to call you names (like cave-troll). I try my best to avoid the grade school antics so beloved on this board. As a bona fide and public state employee, I would think that you would dignify our state by not engaging in such antics as well.

    As an Oregonian, who also holds a minor elected political post in one of the major parties, I recognize that your job is to enforce a poorly written statute. Regardless of whether the statute is on the books or repealed and taken off, I have the right to disagree with the language of the statute and the actions of the ODA which I have done on this board. It is not necessary that I "tunnel" anywhere to follow up on my objections.

    As for the case you mentioned that I brought up, I was not aware of this case until someone provided a link on this board to Dr. Eriksen's site. Frankly, I was stunned to learn that you actually threatened to jail someone (and fine her $25,000) for using her unaccredited degree. Even now you mention (gloat) that she spent over $500,000 on her defense and only received one dollar in return. You take pride in causing a woman to have to pay her life savings to defend her legitimate education? That is the kind of bureaucratic arrogance that the public loves to see displayed.

    If I was not sure the kind of person you were before you posted this message, I am now. Even a "glitter-eyed" cave-troll can see that.
     
  19. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    The cowardly, anonymous and secretive posters and masked pretenders need to leave Alan Contreras alone!

    Amazing! Look who is building a glass house and is throwing the first stone!
    Yeah, right ...... Until russ is cut-open, bloodied and desecrated by a diploma-mill degree waving, fraudulent physician, surgeon or some such health care provider, or until russ or his family member or someone he cares about, is blown up by a diploma mill possessing or substandard minimalist degree-holding publicly employed Security Officer who looked the other way while (Heaven forbid!) a known and easily identifiable terrorist (foreign-born or domestic) boards a plane or some other high-velocity vehicle and plunges it into his (russ's) house or place of business or school or...... or...... or.....

    Then?

    Then, maybe, just maybe, russ (please be honest this ONE time) what would you do?

    You would not take anyone to task, would you?

    You would tell the courts and the state, hey, the person's unverified, un-monitored, unaccredited and non-legitimate degree is no one's business, not the state's business and certainly, not anyone else's business but his, right?

    Gregg, you do have a big heart (I mean this sincerely). You do mean well and should be appluaded for it - and I do. It is nowhere near impossible for russ to be convertible to causes for the greater good of humankind.

    He may even be sincere in his "civic" acts of policing abuses (if any) of state powers in the hands of some decidedly unscrupulous power-hungry bureaucrat, monarch, despot or emperor. I care not one whit.

    But the clearly palpable deceit, the lies, the double-talk - they bether me no end!

    Calling a spade a spade is how one should be - and live one's life.

    Beating swords into ploughshares, well, the good and the strong-willed can do this. But turning a sword into a spade is something I'd leave to the workings of the great miracle-worker, the famed and honored Teacher of Righteousness, not me.

    Russ, be honest, for once, for goodness sake!

    Discussing issues and vehemently disagreeing with the established order (or not) of things, certainly things accreditation-wise or acceptance-wise, is one thing.

    Stealing or supporting the stealing or NOT condemning the stealing of another person's identity (online or off) is quite another. And it is appalling!

    To mill shills and trolls:

    Leave Alan Contreras alone!

    If you have any decency in you as a human being, you would condemn unhesitatingly, the fraudulent use of his name and identity in that other forum (and elsewhere).

    Last I heard, identity theft is a crime, an actionable one, too, not merely a morally repulsive one. Hope you know the difference or care to.

    It is not easy, and often it is thankless, what you do. I, and I am sure many, many others in and out of here, do appreciate your work.

    In a sane world, there can be no negotiating with frauds and the deceitful, academic or otherwise. But who insists that this world is noted for its sanity?

    But it sure is noteworthy for its predominantly prevailing humanity.

    I wish you well, Alan.

    Thanks.
     
  20. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry Russ, but arguing that academic fraud is acceptiable simply because YOU think it can't cause harm is ridiculous. The very act of claiming that one has earned a degree that has not actually been earned shows ignorance and incompetence if not dishonesty and deceit.

    I'm a software engineer and there is no test for competency. Most engineering degrees do not require a government test or license.

    So you argue that academic fraud is okay because most occupations don't require a degree to be competent. You are seeming to argue that one cannot be INCOMPETENT in most occupations!!! Therefore, since one cannot be incompetent in most occupations then it is okay to use deceit, dishonesty, or ignorance to secure those types of jobs!!! :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page