Archive for Stephen T Manning

Stephen Manning’s Continuing Lie on Peacebringer’s blog about Diggory Press and the Nielsens Book Data memo

On Peacebringer’s blog, Stephen T Manning of Checkpoint Press, Ireland, has continued to lie about, bully and harass some of his victims.

On the 15th March 2010, ‘Dr’ Manning, posting in the name of ‘For The Record’ says in order to continue to discredit Rosalind Franklin and her publishing company Diggory Press Ltd: (you can click on this image to enlarge it)

Stephen T Manning is basically pulling out of his hat one of his old (long discredited lies) concerning the Nielsens Book Data memo, the memo from May 2007 which is posted in its entirety at this link: memo, and indeed he’s even added some new lies of his into the mix about this same memo.

Before we got into the newest lies about the memo posted at Peacebringer’s, it is important to examine the old lies, and the reasons for Manning’s old lies about the memo. You might want to take a few minutes to read the memo for yourself, if you have not already, as it makes interesting reading. The Nielsens book data memo was very important, because it contained essential information that any seeker of the truth could read, use and access to verify who was telling the truth; Stephen Manning/Checkpoint Press or Rosalind Franklin/Diggory Press. And even more importantly, it was verifiable information from a key authority and neutral third party witness.

Stephen T Manning, of course, knew the memo’s importance, he also knew if authors did check out the facts for themselves and contacted Nielsens as Diggory Press suggested he would be found out and thoroughly exposed for the liar he really was. So Manning’s only way out was to throw up a complete smokescreen – a red herring – a new lie. This new lie was simple. Not to answer or rebuff any of the actual points of fact within the memo, but to completely misdirect people with a new lie and claim that the memo was a ‘forgery’. Manning said the memo pretended to be authored by Nielsens and yet was not authored by Nielsens, so was therefore ‘a devious fabrication’ of Rosalind Franklin’s. Yet nobody apart from Manning had ever claimed that the memo originated within Nielsen’s: it was actually a memo written by Diggory Press Ltd that was requested by a member of Nielsen’s staff for Nielsen’s staff, containing salient information on the Manning “campaign” to circulate so they could more adequately answer any queries on it.

The memo was first sent to Nielsens on the 4th May 2007, and later that same evening, Diggory Press posted the memo onto the books and tales forum at this link. The memo must be read in its context for what had already been said by Diggory Press immediately preceding it being posted, and what was said just after it. This comment below, for example, from Diggory Press immediately preceded the memo – so in this post Diggory Press is telling any concerned authors to contact the UK isbn agency, an independent witness, and ask them point by point whether there was any truth to Manning’s claims about the isbn agency investigating Diggory Press for dirty dealing etc –

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:25 pm

“Mr Manning has gone too far, getting so carried away by revelling in his malicious glee at this smear campaign that he has shot himself in the foot. He has told a big whopping lie that can be shown to be exactly that… a lie. Yes, I challenge each and every author who still doubts us to phone Nielsens on the phone number Mr Manning has so kindly supplied here and ask them if there is any truth to these claims OR if these wild claims are even technically possible. For those authors who do not want to make the phone call I am attaching the memo to the end of this posting that is doing the rounds at Nielsens’ regarding these vicious claims. NIELSENS ARE A CREDIBLE INDEPENDENT WITNESS. For the record, the only complaint Nielsens have ever recieved re Diggory or its imprints has been ONE from Mr Manning and it has not been given any credence by them, as it is ‘utterly groundless’ with ample evidence to the contrary as well as of course, being technically impossible. Nielsen’s also indicate Mr Manning and Checkpoint’s incompetence in not following the correct publishing procedure and thus indicate the only ‘abuse’ of the isbn system or the not following it to the letter with the breech of isbn protocols has been done by Manning himself! The only correct thing he ever did with Nielsens was cancelling the title which they would have done at any time for him, and is no reflection of their view of Diggory Press, they just do what the publisher tells them.

Hate to say ‘we told you so,’ but we did tell you so….

THESE LIES PROVE THAT ‘STEPHEN MANNING PHD’ as well as being incompetent IS A BLATANT LIAR, and that we are TELLING THE TRUTH…’

The Nielsen’s Book Data memo is then posted in full underneath this comment in a new post. These two posts NEVER claimed the memo to be originating at Nielsens Book Data. And in fact Diggory Press makes even clearer the authorship and purpose of the memo a few posts on.

Stephen Manning, however, in order to turn attention from the vital truth the memo contained, and to divert people from contacting the very people that would show his lies up for what they were, lied about this and threw up a smokescreen by saying Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press was claiming Nielsens had written it. On May 08 2007 he says at the books and tales site:

“… So it can now be stated categorically for the record that the supposed ‘memo’ above, represented by Ms. Franklin as being an internal commentary within Neilsens, is yet another devious fabrication.””

On May 12 2007, Diggory Press said in response to this comment:

“… we are being fully open, and readily inviting everyone to go and check out the facts for themselves. If we had anything to hide we would NOT be calling Manning’s bluff and asking authors to check out the facts for themselves. We are frustrated beyond belief that an ‘unbiased’ author forum that is supposed to know a little bit about publishing does not know, or will not admit to, the very fundamental fact that no publisher can steal another publisher’s isbn as Manning keeps wrongly insisting we have done, among the many other wild and impossible things he claims.

As we have stated before we encourage all authors who doubt us to contact Nielsens direct to see who the deceptive one truly is. I invite one unbiased person who Cleaa is happy to verify is not us or Manning, to phone up Nielsens and ask them to confirm all the points made in the memo and then post their findings on here. Nielsens will confirm every single fact we have posted and thus Mr Manning’s story will be thoroughly discredited.

For the record, the Nielsens’ memo posted on here is not ‘contrived’ – neither was is ‘unsolicited’ – this detailed statement for Nielsens management was requested from us from a staff member of Nielsens on Friday 4th May, and it was sent by us that same day. It was requested by Nielsens in order that it can be circulated internally in its entirety (as a memo) so staff are fully aware of the lies about us being currently peddled by Mr Manning, and are equipped with the full facts if any author does phone in. Before the memo was written, all the factual points re Nielsens were thoroughly verified and checked and cross-checked with all the Nielsens data on their systems and agreed by them. However, we did not claim that Nielsens were the author of the memo – what we rightly said was that it was a memo doing the rounds at Nielsens and the facts could and would be verified to anyone calling in enquiring about them.”

So Diggory Press restated what they had said before about the origins and purpose of this memo, restated what they had not claimed about it, and also made clear its authorship. Diggory Press repeated in several other posts on the same website that they were the author of the memo, and repeated they had never denied being the memo’s author. Yet for all that, Manning continued to bluster and misdirect people, and continued to claim Rosalind had lied.

Now, in March 2010 almost three years on from this, Manning goes back and repeats the lie about the memo being false, even though HE KNOWS THIS IS NOT TRUE. He then falsely claims that “Mrs Franklin has long and often claimed … [it] originated at Nielsens” yet it can be seen she or diggory press did not claim this once, let alone claimed this “long and often”, and actually have clearly and explicitly said the opposite. It is yet another creative invention of Manning’s to say that Rosalind Franklin presented the memo in the way alluded to in the court, as someone who has seen the court papers and read the court transcripts can verify – Rosalind did no such thing. Manning is the proven liar here – yet again – as the court papers and court records prove.

Manning then alludes to a supposed recent email to him on the matter from the CEO of Nielsens. I have no way of knowing if this email alluded to is genuine yet nor been able to verfiy who it’s really from, nor do I know what has been edited out of it or what question/s it was responding to if it is actually genuine. Manning is already proven to have lied about Nielsens many times before already, as well as falsified evidence and perjured himself in court and misrepresented screenshots of websites out of context in his rogue’s gallery saying they said something they never did, so it would not be surprising to see similar tactics again emanating from him.  Even if the quote is genuine, it seems most likely Manning sent the CEO a falsified web-link or a fake screenshot, as the link quoted by the ‘CEO’ in this ’email’ is not to the genuine memo as it was posted at Books and Tales, and/or then Manning presented with this false ‘evidence’ the same old lie that Rosalind Franklin/Diggory Press had said the memo quoted originated at Nielsens which she never in fact had.

It’s also very interesting that Manning does NOT post the facts from the CEO that Diggory Press never claimed to be the publisher of his book, isn’t it, or all the other debunking Nielsens could do of his various claims? Of course he doesn’t, as that would should him up as the liar and extortionist he is.

Even if what is quoted is a genuine quote, all it tells us is that should there has been any representation on the internet or elsewhere that the memo or its contents were approved or originated by Nielsen, as purported by Manning in the screenshot/web-link shown the CEO along with Manning’s misinformation, this claim would be misleading. Which we know already, but we know also that it never happened. But we do know for a fact who is continuing to misrepresent the facts for his own twisted ends and who says it did happen. And that is the evil liar, ‘Dr’ S T Manning.

Advertisements

Comments (1)

Miriam Franklin fraud? (endtimespropheticwords blogger)

Read all the truth here at this blog and read about the real victims involved in this saga! The story is more shocking and more dirty than one could possibly imagine.

Comments (4)

Proof of Stephen T Manning’s fraudulent court claims against Diggory Press and Rosalind Miriam Franklin. Illegally Using Someone Else’s Name

Proof that dirty dog Stephen T Manning of Checkpoint Press, Dooagh Village, Achill Island, Ireland, entered yet another fraudulent and nonsense court claim against Diggory Press, illegally using the name of somebody else without their knowledge! (This is not the only occasion, I have already shown proof concerning one other supposed claimant).

(You can click on this image to enlarge it. I have whited out some of the personal information on this letter such as full names and addresses and signature).

As a bit more background information, in their defence to the fraudulent claim (before being made aware of the above letter and the surrounding circumstances), Diggory Press had said to the court:

“VMK is not a customer of ours and has not yet paid us any money as even she/he admits. We dispute the fact that any such CD was sent to us, as it has not once been requested to be returned, let alone requested “numerous times”, and no setup/file review fee of £30 was ever enclosed with it, nor were we ever informed of the CD’s existence before this court claim. However, even if it had genuinely been sent, by sending materials to us the author has agreed to our terms and conditions as posted on our website which include that we are not responsible for loss of, or damage to material submitted by the Author, including but not limited to manuscripts, discs, CDs, and artwork.

They have also agreed that: “The Author agrees that the liability of Exposure Publishing, its employees and agents, if any, arising out of any kind of legal claim (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) connected with any transaction entered with Exposure Publishing shall not exceed the amount The Author paid to Exposure Publishing in connection with the transaction giving rise to such a claim. Exposure Publishing or its employees, agents or third-party licensors and content providers will not be liable to The Author or anyone else for any special, consequential, indirect, exemplary, cover, punitive, incidental or similar damages (including, without limitation, lost profits, lost sales, or lost business) directly or indirectly related to The Book.”.. and they paid us nothing.

Furthermore, at the time VMK was requesting to be invoiced for publishing services (but that is all – with no mention of any CD) we were NOT accepting in new work and had this fact posted on the front page of our website. We cannot therefore be blamed for not invoicing him/her, or for not corresponding with them. It is no failure on our part – only the author’s for not reading the website properly.

The fact we did not invoice or accept in new work when we were then at full capacity indicates our continued trustworthiness and integrity in not invoicing for work we do not think we can fulfil. I highlight the personal remarks and character assassinations about ‘Mrs Franklin’ and her alleged failures, which is not necessarily the same as any alleged failures of Diggory Press Ltd. These remarks are made by someone who has not even dealt with us/far less me personally and indicates collusion with and ‘coaching’ by Stepehn Manning, otherwise how would they have known my name or even gotten personal?This claim is highly suspect and we do not think it can be true for the reasons given already and many more. If the author had really sent a disc they would have really sent a cheque. But they did not.

It is also not logical to not make a copy of ‘irreplacable photos’ before sending them to any publisher in the Royal Mail. Furthermore, it is most likely these same photos were on another CD or computer hard-drive anyway and so nothing has really been lost apart form a CD disc worth less than a £1, and this is a bogus claim.

The claim for £250 for “cost of trying to obtain materials so far” is also highly suspect with no actual backup or real data given. Regardless, the fact is the author has not once requested [to] the first port of call – us – for the disc.

However, regardless of whether an actual disc was genuinely sent out or not, this claim has no substance because of our terms and conditions, not to mention common sense. This is a harassing, frivolous and vexatious claim and the claim should be struck out. ..”

This, by the way, is the bogus claim entered by Manning (supposedly) on VMK’s behalf: (you can click on the image to enlarge it – private details such as names and addresses, although in the public domain, I have chosen to white out for the sake of privacy – especially as VMK is one of Manning’s “victims” too.)

Comments (31)

Mary Ann Simpson caught falsifying documents against Diggory Press Ltd – the actual court transcript

This is part of an actual authorised transcript of the Diggory Press court case proceedings in November 2009.

(Mary Ann Simpson was one of Stephen T Manning’s co-conspirators and had entered a false claim of her own against Diggory Press. Mary Ann Simpson had been caught out falsifying documentary evidence against Diggory Press, and was cornered with irrefutable evidence from an important witness, Bill Wiggin MP, that she had done this.

Here, Mary Ann Simpson of Horley, Surrey, admits under oath to falsifying the documents in question. However Mary Ann Simpson dares to brazenly state to the court she does not think her fraud in this instance ‘relevant’!)

________________________

“ROSALIND FRANKLIN (TO JUDGE):  Mrs Simpson forged a letter allegedly [sent] to Bill Wiggin, MP, she forged a letter and she has entered false evidenceand we have got proof that what she has entered in her evidence bundle as what she actually sent to Bill Wiggin is not what was actually sent to Bill Wiggin, because we have the original and we have the proof, which is signed and annotated by [him].

… [it] in black and white … proves forgery and fraud … One of the testimonials on our website is given from a Bill Wiggin who is a Conservative MP, and a number of people coached by Mr Manning approached Bill Wiggin and, you know, told various lies to him etc about us.  In Mrs Simpson’s evidence bundle is one of the letters that Mrs Simpson says that she sent to Bill Wiggin. She has actually concocted this after the fact because we have actually got proof and she probably did not know this. Bill Wiggin had actually sent us the original letter that she had sent him and the two are very different. So she has obviously concocted it after the fact.  She has changed her story.  Somebody who is content enough to do such a thing before a court of law in a sworn evidence bundle, well, you know, what else are they going to lie about… ?  ….

MARY ANN SIMPSON [To Judge] Could I… the letter to Bill Wiggin is not germane [relevant] in my opinion ….”

________________________

Comments (5)

Color of Truth was only printed in one version by Diggory Press, despite what has been insinuated by Manning

This bit of court submitted evidence, evidence from Diggory Press Ltd’s printers, explains pretty clearly what it is about and what it proves: Diggory Press did not do what they were accused of doing by Stephan T Manning in relation to his title The Color of Truth.

This is also yet more damning evidence of yet more Stephen Manning smear and lies.

You can click on the image to enlarge it if you need to. (I have whited out some personal information).

Leave a Comment

Diggory Press v Stephen T Manning Court Case. DIGITAL FILES – THEFT AND EXTORTION

One of the many unreasonable demands that Stephen T Manning of Checkpoint Press, Dooagh Village, Achill Island, Eire has made of Diggory Press Ltd is that “his” digital files are “returned” to him.

Before we investigate this bogus claim, a quick explanation is needed as to what these digital files are:

Stephen T Manning hired Diggory Press Ltd to make his manuscript “print ready” for the printers. This involved Diggory Press creating a front and rear cover and spine for the title, and making sure the title’s cover was the right format, size and print resolution. It involved placing a proper book barcode on it, and working on the book interior, again ensuring it was the right size with fonts correctly embedded at the correct dpi, and so on and so forth. These digital files for the cover and text interior were then checked over and authorised by Manning, and were then sent on to the digital printers to print Manning’s book “on demand’.

Digital files have value because of all the “man hours” of labour behind them in creating them during pre publication work. Even in a digital age, the costs for typesetting, cover art and other such pre production work can be very expensive. Most firms you’d be lucky to get change out of £500 for a very basic service from them – and this would not be counting in the costs of corrections, where each and every correction, however small, can easily cost a minimum of £50 a time.

Digital files also have value in their future potential. Because they are needed to digitally produce and print a book (or ebook), they are an asset because of the potential royalties on any book sales produced by using these digital files.

Everybody in the printing and publishing process knows the value of digital files  – especially the self publishing author.

A few printers or agents may offer significantly discounted price pre-publication work to create digital files for authors or publishers, provided that the digital files they produce for the author or publisher are only used by and through their print services. They’ll often have a minimum amount of copies the author has to buy to recoup what profit was “lost” at the pre production stage, and/or have a minimum contract and tie-in to cover themselves in the future to ensure the author has to come back to them for more books.

So even though the content of the book (e.g. the story) is fully the author’s, and it is his or her copyright, and is (usually) his or hers to use as they wish and even have printed and produced elsewhere, the cut-price digital files produced by the printer or agent on the author’s behalf are not the author’s property.

So digital files produced in such a way are NOT the author’s property. And they would not be ‘returned’ to the author, as they were never ‘given’ by the author in the first place.

A printer or agent would not be “seizing and highjacking” the title (as Manning wrongly claims Diggory Press did) by refusing to “return” digital files when there was a parting of ways, nor would they be “making extortive demands” (ditto, Manning) by asking a reasonable market price for the digital files so the author could freely use them anywhere else he wanted to in the future.

To explain this a little bit more clearly for technophobes – it’s rather like if you go and get something printed at an old fashioned printers (i.e. a non digital printers that use print plates). Even though the printer may design your item of stationery for you, and then create print plates especially for your stationery, and then print off your stationery items using these same print plates, you as this printer’s customer would have no right of ownership to the valuable print plates he used to produce your item. You’d only have rights to the end item, the actual stationery produced. You could not take that printer’s plates to use at another printers for a new print run! Unless of course, you bought the plates from the first printers by separate negotiation. (It’s possible also that the printer’s design for your stationery would be copyrighted, so if you produced ‘knock off’ items on your photocopier or at another printers you could also be breaching the printer’s copyright and breaking the law.)

Manning took Rosalind Franklin personally (not the Diggory Press Ltd company she worked for) to the small claims court, suing her for “his” digital files along with a load of other concocted nonsense he’d made up to smear her. This was part of Manning’s ongoing harassment against Rosalind, an openly Christian businesswoman.

The small claims court is a civil (not criminal court) where anyone can attempt to sue anyone else for pretty much anything  – it does not mean their claim has any truth or substance to it whatsoever, or is even against the right person to being with. (Manning even had the brazenness to claim relief from court fees to make his abusive, fictitious and harassing claims, but that’s another story.)

So anyway there was a court case between Manning and Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press where a judge heard evidence about Manning’s digital files claim.

Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press Ltd when giving evidence on this issue explained it to the court by equating it to a professional wedding photographer taking photos at a wedding. The photographer takes “your pictures”, using your face, in your environment at your wedding, having been ordered by you and paid for by your money; and he’s working on your behalf in response to your specific requests. You are entitled to purchase pictures taken under this deal from the photographer as many times as you like in the future, however you would NOT be entitled to have outright ownership of the negativescontaining “your images” of “your occasion” (unless this was separately stipulated in the contract). And you would also be technically breaking the photographer’s copyright if you tried to bypass the photographer and get prints of his work elsewhere, or otherwise tried to copy it by scanning it or photocopying it. In such a way, Rosalind Franklin successfully argued, digital files were like the negatives of the book, and the author had no rights to demand them for free, especially and even more so when the contract between Diggory Press Ltd and Manning clearly stipulated that digital files remained the property of the publisher and would have to be purchased by separate negotiation.

Under such circumstances, any newly-wed trying to sue his wedding photographer for “his” negatives, and any author trying to sue the printers for “his” print plates would be laughed out of court – rather as Manning was, the judge ruling in Rosalind Franklin and Diggory Press’s favour in November 2009 that Manning had no right to the digital files Diggory Press had worked on for him  – which, of course, Manning had known all along anyway.

The evidence illustrates Manning had not been innocently mistaken. The abundant evidence shows that Manning knew the files were not his to keep from day one. This is shown in his own emails on the issue before his failed extortion attempt, as well as the clear contract between him and Diggory which was not in tiny print, plus there is more damning evidence from his own Checkpoint Press publishing website which I’ll go into shortly. Also, IF these digital files were Manning’s property, then once the finalised files had been checked over and authorised by Manning, Manning would have then used these files directly with the printers for himself instead of continuing to use Diggory Press as the middleman once the publishing process was over, as he did in fact do. He would not have placed orders for books with DP but with the printers direct instead. So his behaviour for many months after the files were finished for him makes no sense unless he is lying now, which we, of course, assert.

Rosalind Franklin has consistently stated to the courts and the police that Manning is not innocent – he is a criminal, a serial blackmailer who was trying to extort these valuable files along with some money from Diggory Press, with the threat to smear her and her business if she did not give into his unreasonable demands.  She refused, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Diggory Press as a company, and RF as a person, have had one of the most sustained, lying, hateful and vindictive orchestrated smear campaigns conducted against them possible. This is in addition to everything else behind the scenes such as death threats, And for what? All for Manning’s greed – and a sick pleasure at taunting and punishing his prey for not giving into him, boasting he is teaching them a lesson.  Even though Manning’s first alleged extortion attempt failed, Manning is allegedly carrying on lying, smearing, threatening, bullying, intimidating and harassing his prey with the hope that she will crack and bow under all the relentless pressure and pay him off.

Manning by his writings demonstrates an evident hatred against professing evangelical Christians like Rosalind Franklin so this may be an additional motive for his harassment. Certainly Manning taunts her regularly calling her deluded for holding her professed beliefs. Manning has revealed he hated that Rosalind Franklin and Diggory Press helped produce a Christian charity’s “non tolerant” book which showed up religious cults and sects including the Unification church (the Moonies) to which Manning and his spouse (that he was married to in a Moonie mass wedding ceremony) have had long term associations. So who knows all this criminal’s additional motives in this campaign other than ‘pure’ greed for filthy lucre and personal ambition.

The ironic thing for all their vilification is that Diggory Press Ltd had been so good to Manning and had significantly undercharged him. Rosalind Franklin personally had gone more than the extra mile with Manning at a tiny price, and had graciously put up with him taking a lot of liberties even before he made his extortive demands. She personally, and the company, gave an excellent service at a fraction of all the other firms out there – doing literally ten times more for authors, at literally ten times less the price charged by most other self publishing operators. It was no wonder that in a tainted industry Diggory Press shone and had such an impeccable reputation, and no wonder they were growing so rapidly with so many repeat customers. Until Manning started to smear them, that is.

For a web based business dependant on getting custom through the web, mud sticks. And one malicious man can pretend to be many people from the safety of his computer, and make it appear something has gone on to “the many” that has not even happened to the one. Diggory Press WERE too good to be true, but only because Rosalind was a mug and charged too little for what she did. But for those what suspected it was too good to be true, when they heard the mud they were all too inclined to believe it.

In addition to all Manning’s lies against Diggory Press and Rosalind Franklin and any other innocents caught in the path – hundreds and hundreds of Manning lies, ever evolving, constantly contradicting –  and an ongoing barrage of other dirty tricks, threats and harassment, Manning did dirty things like entering multiple false claims against Diggory Press Ltd in the small claims court (alleging anything damaging he could make up), and then going to the press and saying “Diggory Press have all these claims against them for fraud, theft, abuse etc etc  ..” and the press printed that as fed to them by Manning without checking it out. This sounded terrible and did make their name mud, but what the reckless press did not report was all these claims were all nonsense claims entered and paid and sponsored for by Manning, operator of a wannabe rival business, Checkpoint Press, and that none of these claims had any truth or substance to them – some of these claims even used false names!

Some of these claims were so bogus it was laughable (e.g. the person, “VK’ who was not even a customer claiming £250 for the loss of an unsolicited CD disc she’d supposedly sent into DP), – laughable claims that is, if it had not had such a devastating affect on Rosalind and her business, and also the genuine Diggory Press customers who suffered because of Manning’s criminal and perjurious activity which in time affected all of them.

Anyway, here is the evidence from Manning’s own Checkpoint Press website. (You can click on any of the images to enlarge them). The screenshots are evidence that Manning is well aware about who owns digital files in the publishing process. Here is what Manning says to HIS own prospective self publishing authors about digital files – taken over three different screenshots –  so he doesn’t just say it one time. He obviously knows the custom and is not an innocently mistaken author! What a total menace he is – and a hypocrite. It’s one rule for him, and another rule for anyone else.

Screenshot 1 from Checkpoint Press, Achill Island

Screenshot 2 from Checkpoint Press, Achill Island

Screenshot 3 from Checkpoint Press, Achill Island

This article was written by Sleuth for Truth, Nov 10th 2009

Leave a Comment

Stephen T Manning broke HIS SIDE of the contract with Diggory Press

This information is based on allegations submitted in court documents submitted on June 15 2009.

It is extremely ironic that Stephen T Manning of Checkpoint Press alleges that Diggory Press broke the terms of the contract between them, when it’s alleged that the facts show the opposite is true – namely, Stephen T Manning broke his contract with Diggory Press.

And Stephen T Manning had allegedly done so from the very start of his working with Diggory. Let’s have a look at why it is thought so:-

The contract between Manning and Diggory Press stated, among other things, that –

“The Author warrants that the work does not contain libel or defamation, falsified information or private information the author has no right to make public, is not harassing, and does not invade any individual’s right of privacy or publicity.

The Author warrants that The Book does not break the law or facilitate the breaking of the law, does not violate any copyright or other intellectual property right; does not contain material that is obscene, pornographic, inflammatory, or racially or otherwise objectionable and does not harm minors in any way.

To the best of The Author’s knowledge, all purported factual information in The Book is true and accurate, and the following of any advice in The Book will not be harmful to any user.”

So Stephen T Manning warranted to Diggory Press that his book’s ‘factual’ information was true and accurate, did not contain falsified information, and that it did not break the law. Yet as shown in the article Manning’s Checkpoint Press fraudulent books defrauding the book buying public? his book did break the law in some places where it was put on sale and contained false information as to his credentials.

– This article was written by SleuthforTruth, June 17 2009

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »