Summary of lies vs the actual evidence – The Supposed Theft of Checkpoint Press’s ISBN

Accusation:  Manning (STM), linked to Checkpoint Press, claimed Rosalind Franklin (RF) of Diggory Press (DP) wrongly published his Checkpoint Press company’s book under their own imprint, thus he accused RF and DP of theft of copyright, theft of an isbn number, theft of royalties and fraud etc. (RF/DP was only employed to prepare for publication, print and distribute his title.)

The facts:

  1. ISBN numbers are uniquely coded and assigned to a publisher. Each publisher will have his unique publisher prefix within each isbn code used, along with other data about him/his company, which helps to assign book orders through the correct channels to the correct publisher.
  • ISBN numbers are not transferable from publisher to publisher for this reason.

– the evidence shows that the isbn number did not ever transfer to DP, nor did RF attempt to transfer it (at link

  • Each publisher is responsible for sending in book data about each of their own titles to the official ISBN agency (the one that assigns ISBN numbers in the first place) who in turn pass this information onto bookstores.

– the evidence shows STM was negligent in listing his own title which could have resulted in mistakes being made about how his title was listed (at link)

  • Another publisher cannot liaise with the ISBN agency about another publisher’s title, as he does not have the authority or the capacity to do so.

– the evidence shows that RF and DP did not attempt to liaise with the ISBN agency about STM’s title. (at link)

  • One publisher cannot ‘steal’ another publisher’s isbn from them (as STM accused RF of doing) as it would be totally useless to them because of all the other publishers data’ contained within it and how the isbn has been set up. They’d have absolutely no control over the title, how its listed or its sales. All book orders using a Checkpoint isbn would still go to STM so what could possibly be gained from such a ‘theft’ of an isbn (even if it was technically possible) – financially or in any other ways?

– the evidence shows RF and DP did not steal STM’s isbn number (at link)

  • ISBN numbers are matters of public record and have to be that in order for them to be worth anything at all. (Their worth is only in the data linked to them so publishers can make book sales)

– A ‘secret’ or unofficial isbn (which STM accuses RF/DP of doing/using) is therefore a total oxymoron in terms.

  • Bookshops and book websites cannot order a book, and publishers cannot sell a book to retailers, unless the title has an official isbn number and that isbn number has been officially listed correctly with the official agency against the official publisher. ISBN numbers have to be official, accurate and correct because the data linked to them has to officially go through the official agency in order to work.

– Fraud that STM accuses DP/RF of doing is not therefore even possible.

  • ISBN numbers have little to no financial worth in and of themselves and so are not worth stealing, even if it was possible for them to be ‘stolen’. They cost about 65 pence each when bought in bulk from the ISBN agency.

– no reasonable person could possibly conclude that a publishing company would be stupid enough to attempt to do such a thing, when they could just use their own number at a cost to them of just 65 pence, and they would be at so much more disadvantage by using another’s number as shown above that it makes no sense.

  • If a publishing company was corrupt enough to make a counterfeit edition, they’d have to use their own company’s isbn number in order to ensure all book orders went to them and to ensure they had complete control over the title.

– The evidence shows that RF and DP never assigned one of their own company’s isbn numbers to STM’s book. (proof link)

– The evidence shows their Exposure Publishing imprint (or any other imprint linked to DP/RF) never claimed to be the book’s publisher in any shape or form.

– Just remember too that this is self publishing of a very low selling title here. In total STM’s ‘genuine’ edition (the only edition as far as RF and DP is concerned) sold a grand total of around four (4) copies, so no criminally inclined person would salivate over its potential from ‘knock off’ sales! Are we reasonably supposed to think that anybody would go so far out of their way and risk so much to produce a counterfeit edition which would make even fewer annual sales than 4?!

– STM’s title was so low selling, in fact, its royalties did not cover basic costs of keeping it for sale – so that even though DP was contractually entitled to keep selling and distributing it, RF decided to withdraw it from distribution to avoid having to pay the annual maintenance charge on it of around £7, as they calculated the annual royalties from it would not even cover costs of keeping the first edition going! So it’s ludicrous to charge DP with producing a false ‘secret’ second edition when she did not even want to keep the first running!

  • In order for a book to be published under one of their own publishing imprints, DP would have had to use one of its own isbn numbers uniquely assigned   – but they did not. STM’s Checkpoint Press’s isbn was used as specifically directed.
  1. see the evidence of the book in question – the cover and the publisher details page which do not show RF or DP’s details anywhere (at link)
  2. see letter from ISBN agency specifically and explicitly saying that DP/RF did not do this at any time
  3. see the evidence that STM had seen this evidence, yet has continued to persist in his lies
  4. see also the Neilsen’s ISBN agency memo giving more details on this, and why it was such a silly accusation to begin (at link)
  5. see the evidence of the DP website showing RF and DP did not ever claim to be the publisher, and also the evidence STM lied about this by claiming their website listing was changed. (at link )
  • STM further claimed that because certain book websites had also listed his other titles against Exposure (titles that had never gone through RF/DP) there was something untoward and crooked going on (read here: The book(s) that Diggory Press had zero control over yet were blamed for) – yet this actually vindicates RF and DP as they cannot possibly be accused of doing something untoward with books that they had no link to, control over, or financial interest in.


  1. It’s impossible for another publisher to do what is claimed because of the way isbn numbers operate.
  2. RF and DP had nothing to gain financially from this, even if they were able to do it.
  3. The evidence is that STM only concocted up this accusation against DP and RF long after the fact.
  4. No proof has been presented that RF and DP did what is claimed as the proof does not – and cannot – exist.
  5. Proof has been supplied that RF and DP did not do this.
  6. The same allegations have been made about books DP and RF had even less control over and no financial links to.
  7. Proof has also been supplied of numerous of STM’s other lies and contradictions to date


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: