Manning’s mentality belongs in the playground

This is the most recent comment that bully-boy Manning left on this site. He obviously is implying (like he wrongly says of all other of his critics) that I am Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press Ltd in disguise.

(Rosalind is overweight hence the personal remark calling her ‘fatty’. Rosalind Franklin also lives near Bodmin, hence the remark about her being the beast of Bodmin).

This remark surely shows his true colours – and also his mentality.

(The IP address on the comment has been edited for privacy issues – however it IS his)

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Diggory Press Bills For Work Not Done – Oh Really? The Proof Of Manning’s Book Revision

Manning has claimed that Diggory Press overcharges people and don’t do what they claim, citing his own experience of a book revision he said he paid them for and says was never done.

Regarding the book revision that Manning said he paid for and says was never done on his behalf – guess, what? Yep, more lies! The evidence shows it was done in August 2006 just as Rosalind Franklin at Diggory Press Ltd had said it was. And the money for this and some other work is still owed to RF and so wasn’t paid for! MORE MANNING LIES BUSTED!

This screenshot evidence from court-related paperwork (with some private details whited out) is the log from the Diggory Press publisher’s account at Lightning Source printers, showing that Rosalind Franklin for Diggory Press Ltd did indeed upload a revision to his book on their systems on his behalf exactly when she said she did – the 18th August 2006. (STM still hasn’t paid DP for it.)

Worse still Manning, even knowing this, even knowing he hadn’t paid for all the work, and even having seen this evidence presented from another witness to the court, continued to lie and perjure himself under oath (a criminal offence) by saying Rosalind/Diggory Press had not done it!

Of course, STM’s known all along that DP did do the work billed (and undercharged him too for lots of other work), and he’s known all along he never paid DP for all this work.

But that’s just part of his extortion racket tactics – smear, lie, harass, smear, lie, harass – commit some criminal offences along the way – hoping poor DP and Rosalind will cave in under the relentless pressure and give into his “demands”, while all the time vindictively punishing her and “teaching” her a lesson for not giving into him before. She’s still standing her ground against him though, and needs your prayers that justice is done and Manning is jailed for his numerous crimes against her.

Rosalind Franklin allegedly is not his first victim, and is allegedly also not his last victim. But it has got particularly vicious in this case, in that RF is a professing Christian and so there’s been a lot of religious harassment and hatred too from Manning added in for ‘good’ measure. (Manning has had a long term connection with the Moonies). Whatever his motives, we have had other worried and frightened people contact us also claiming similar methods that Manning has allegedly utilised in order to intimidate, bully, harass and to extort money from them too. (Just where does he get the time?)

Leave a Comment

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.

SO TO SUMMARISE –

  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 Comment

Diggory Press Published Color of Truth under their own Exposure Publishing imprint – or did they?

Oh really, Mr. Manning? This is the book’s title page, evidence from paperwork for court at an open case hearing so thus available to the public domain, (and also usage of it would fall within ‘fair use’ rules anyway as it’s for non profit news reporting, education, critique and review): do you see any mention of ‘Diggory Press’, ‘Exposure Publishing’,’ Meadow Books ‘or ‘Rosalind Franklin’ anywhere on it?  It is only Checkpoint Press’s details which is how it should be, and how the evidence show it always was, and how STM knew it always was too.

And then we have the cover image …. whose logo is it on the rear cover and on the spine? Whose isbn is on the barcode. Checkpoint Press you say? EXACTLY! Yet bizarrely Mr Manning claims this was ‘illegally’ published by Exposure Publishing publishing it under their own imprint. I don’t think so. And the evidence doesn’t think so either.

Leave a Comment

The book(s) that Diggory Press had zero control over yet were blamed for

Manning (STM) for Checkpoint Press, in seeking to continue to smear and harass Rosalind Franklin (RF) of Diggory Press (DP), says in 2007 on a comment left on a publishing blog – (link)

I took a screenshot to show you what Manning is referring to – showing that an obscure book website in Germany decided to list STM’s next edition of The Color of Truth, (link) rightly using STM’s own Checkpoint Press’ isbn number, but wrongly allocating the title against ‘Exposure Publishing’ (run by Rosalind Franklin) as its publisher.

However, as of today, approx two years on from that blog post, Manning has done nothing to correct this error as it is still up there as being published by Exposure today, so STM can’t be that bothered by it, indicating he is well aware it doesn’t mean anything sinister or anything untoward has been done to his book.

If this were, as STM is intent on implying, some sort of bizarre secret counterfeit edition Rosalind Franklin had somehow done on the sly (how?), and RF was somehow making money off it (HOW? – when the isbn is set up to him/his company and any book orders could only come to him?) and also WHY  (when the average life sales for a self published print on demand book are less than two copies – so it’s an awful lot of risk and work for a couple of pounds at best in sales that would all be eaten up anyway in the initial book set up costs meaning any such silly person allegedly doing this would be doing it at a big loss!) – but IF there was anything DP had done wrong in this instance then you can bet your bottom dollar that all these years down the line he’d have sorted it out! But STM has NOT. Which speaks volumes about this particular allegation and also about its lack of veracity!

STM asks why it appears under Exposure Publishing – a question he well knows the answer to as Rosalind Franklin has told him exactly why. Along with the ISBN agency. However he is banking on his readers to NOT know the answer – or to not bother checking the facts out for themselves, and to automatically connect the smear against Diggory Press with all the rest of his smear against Diggory Press and lazily come to incorrect conclusions about them and the Christian woman that he incessantly harasses there. Trust him, he says. After all he is a doctor! (BTW, you need to see this about where STM bought his Phd doctorate from, if you haven’t done already)

I’ve already gone into Manning’s false claims about what Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press Ltd supposedly did with his title when it was being printed and distributed through her company with his authority: – that is he says RF instead of merely printing and distributing it for him as a third party, printed and distributed it under her own company’s publishing imprint/s instead. (Impossible to do when still using his own publishing company’s isbn (as was the actual case) – check the facts on this site out: and if she’d printed it under her own imprint it would have had to have had one of her company’s isbns assigned to it which it never did), and also look at the extra evidence that shows Diggory Press did not do this. And any publisher would KNOW this as it is very basic – it’s not rocket science. So any publisher who alleges otherwise is either totally inept or corrupt, or both inept and corrupt.)

STM is going even further here in this particular allegation, because he’s saying that he took his Color of Truth book as a new edition with a new isbn number of his own to his own printers and distributors without having Rosalind Franklin or Diggory Press or its staff involved anywhere  in the whole process from start through to finish.

So how can RF then be blamed for this error on his new title on a German book website – when the book was nothing to do with her or her company and was not in her control? How can this imply anything sinister that she or her company has done?  This listing ‘error’ is even more obviously not her fault, and also even more obviously not something she had any control over at all!

As Manning and EVERY publisher knows, the German book website (along with all book websites) gets its information from the ISBN agency – NOT from another publisher or individual. Only a book’s publisher – Checkpoint Press in Manning’s title’s case – have authority to release when and what type of information about each and every new title is sent to the ISBN agency, which in turn affects how the title is eventually listed on book websites. Even if another party wanted to, they could not list or change another party’s book’s data. So forget about why would anyone want to do this, it’s a question of nobody else could do this – even if they wanted to.

The responsibility for this ‘error’ then can only lie in three places: and none of them is at Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press’s feet. As Manning ridiculously alleges.

No publisher or website can blame another publisher, whoever they be, for errors in their own book’s listing. As another publisher  does not have the authority or the ability to be able to supply or to alter this data. Yet STM does blame another publisher – a rival – for doing this along with a host of other ‘criminal’ things –  even though he knows they technically cannot do what he accuses them of doing, and also knows that his rival did not do as charged anyway!

The fact is that if there is any incorrect information on any website or book report then it’s the fault of the book website, or the ISBN agency, or the owner of the isbn number who sent in (or did not send in) the information to the ISBN agency in the first place (the most likely reason for fault).

RF and DP has no authority with the isbn agency or with book websites to be able to send in information on any other publisher’s book, including on Checkpoint Press titles. STM however DOES have authority to alter information on Checkpoint titles, and so if anyone fraudulently altered his title data, the finger MUST firmly point to him as being responsible for it, wherever it occurred. And there is the technical possibility STM may have intentionally changed it over to Exposure in order to try and defame and frame RF/DP – I’m not saying he did it (I have no evidence of that at this time), – I’m saying it would be possible for him or someone working for him to do it.  The same with the same website’s listings showing there are other Checkpoint Press titles allocated against Exposure Publishing too –

and

So whoever responsible for this listing, and whatever their motives for doing it, it could not possibly be RF or DP who did it. How on earth can RF or DP be responsible for this – titles they have zip control over?! How on earth can RF or DP possibly be blamed for this German website listing, as Manning is clearly implying?! This yet again, is smear for sheer smear’s sake by him. He knows the truth. But not all others reading his trash do. And it’s also true the public are lazy and are unlikely to investigate detailed smear like this, especially because the self publishing industry has such a bad reputation anyway, so it’s guilty til proven innocent in their minds as fars DP goes.

But actually, if people actually think about this for a moment – the fact that this has happened with books that everybody can see RF and DP had no control over whatsoever (and no financial interest in), openly exonerates RF and her company and dispels all Manning’s “evidence” about both alleged occasions – showing it for what it is: complete nonsense. It also yet again underlines Manning’s continued lies and false charges.

Leave a Comment

Diggory Press Were Taken To Court Over A £10 Courier Charge

In a previous post, I mentioned, among other cases, one of the Diggory Press court claims that had not succeeded that was linked to rival publisher Manning’s ongoing campaign of smear and harassment against Diggory Press.

“8PZ00098, author name Karina Kantas. This must be the most petty case of the lot, quibbling over DP asking for £10 to redirect her books to a new address after having stored them for free for her for months after they’d been returned by the courier for persistent non collection despite cards left for the author. This author or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. Case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.”

I have been released to post some supporting evidence regarding this.

Here’s the initial delivery note, proving the books were printed and shipped to Karina Kantas’ address in Greece on 21st June 2007. (Personal details have been blacked out.)

The next picture shows one of the many courier’s notes on the returned box of books. It’s all Greek to me but it’s evidently a courier’s sticker, and I’m guessing it was the depot in Greece that handled the box of books.

And here’s some more stickers from the returned box of books. If you magnify it you can see who it was sent to (Karina Kantas) under the layers of courier stickers the prove this box has bounced around a bit. The sticker in yellow gives a date in July 2007, and says the reason for the box of books being returned to Diggory Press Ltd in England was because the courier had tried to deliver and failed, and despite three courier cards being left, they had not been contacted and the books not picked up.

Karina Kantas was informed by Diggory Press of the box’s return, and then asked what she wanted done with the box. She asked for the books to be sent to a new address linked to her in England. Diggory Press asked for £10 to cover the courier charges as in these circumstances they are charged by the courier to send to a third address. Karina Kantas refused to pay this paltry amount, and the rest, as they say, is history….

Manning filled in the court paperwork on this court claim, signed it and also paid for it. The only case that was more pathetic than this was the customer who was not even a customer claiming £250 for a computer disc sent by normal mail!

Comments (1)

The Michigan Attorney General and PageFree Publishing

Has Manning been misdirecting authors about PageFree as well as Diggory Press? You can read some comments he made here on this link. These are not the only comments made either.

Manning allegedly attempted to blackmail PageFree Publishing before moving onto blackmailing Diggory Press, (and PageFree like Diggory Press refused to play with him so allegedly got smeared and harassed like Diggory did).

Despite allegations I found to the contrary made by Manning, I get totally different information to his when I checked it out by going direct to the horse’s mouth – in this case, the Attorney General’s office in Michigan.

23 just coincidentally happens to be the same number of  false fraudulent claims Manning has been responsible in getting entered against Diggory Press to date. Maybe STM’s got an obsession about numbers, in addition to an obsession about Rosalind Franklin, a director of Diggory Press Ltd?

Leave a Comment

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »