The Using of Personal Identities in Works of Fiction

[bigscoop]

Was the Beale papers a simple work of fiction? Most likely the answer is no, this being due to the huge amount of liability the author faced when he determined to use real and personal identities in his presented scheme that money was being illegally acquired and hidden as there are laws in place that prevent such inflammatory devices. One can review them here:

How to Use Real People in Your Writing Without Ending Up in Court


“Clay, Coles, Witcher, Jackson, and Chief Justice Marshall”...four of these identities are not clearly drawn, the fifth is. Robert Morriss, his wife Sarah, Max. G., Thomas Beale, all of these identities are offered and referenced in the pamphlet, the author of the pamphlet arranging that he remain anonymous. Why? Did he do this to escape the huge risk of liability of making inflammatory statements or did he do this as a means to protect himself against the possible fallout for reporting a truth?


Unfortunately, when one researchers the many mysteries that have arrived from this publication they must also research the potential legal aspects that might arise with it. According to the story the source of the wealth had come Spanish territory, this in itself being illegal at the time, not to mention that the alleged wealth was then smuggled back into the US and then hidden from US authority. So if this story is true then everyone referenced in the pamphlet becomes suspect as possibly having knowledge or personal attachment to these illegal events. And then quite obviously, if the story is not true but has been presented to be accepted as such then this same risk of inflammatory and/or defamation liability still remains.


In the case of an agent who acts as representative of the material containing the inflammatory statements, well, if it can be proven that he had knowledge of those inflammatory statements then he can be held liable as well. When we examine the Beale Papers in a legal light then the circumstances surrounding the publication “containing authentic statements” present quite the conundrum, indeed because the author has left the entire text completely open to the reader's guess as to how many of those statements, and which ones, are indeed authentic. In fact, he has actually left his readers to assume that the entire text could contain all authentic statements.


So the big question is simply this, why no legal fallout as result of this publication from those referenced in the pamphlet or their families? Did they not have a case to pursue, and if so, why? The obvious answer here is that it's quite possible that they didn't have a case because the information was accurate, or that the information couldn't be proven to be inaccurate. The second option here is that they had all given their approval for these identities to be used, in which case, then why did the author still feel it required that he remain anonymous?


Why all of this extra fuss over the publication's possible legal impact? Because we have to determine if there is any possible truth in the tale, and if so, possibly how much truth, that's why. So what you say?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

...or by 1885, except for Max Guggenheimer, all the others in the job pamphlet were dead.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Was the Beale papers a simple work of fiction? Most likely the answer is no, this being due to the huge amount of liability the author faced when he determined to use real and personal identities in his presented scheme that money was being illegally acquired and hidden as there are laws in place that prevent such inflammatory devices. One can review them here:

How to Use Real People in Your Writing Without Ending Up in Court


“Clay, Coles, Witcher, Jackson, and Chief Justice Marshall”...four of these identities are not clearly drawn, the fifth is. Robert Morriss, his wife Sarah, Max. G., Thomas Beale, all of these identities are offered and referenced in the pamphlet, the author of the pamphlet arranging that he remain anonymous. Why? Did he do this to escape the huge risk of liability of making inflammatory statements or did he do this as a means to protect himself against the possible fallout for reporting a truth?


Unfortunately, when one researchers the many mysteries that have arrived from this publication they must also research the potential legal aspects that might arise with it. According to the story the source of the wealth had come Spanish territory, this in itself being illegal at the time, not to mention that the alleged wealth was then smuggled back into the US and then hidden from US authority. So if this story is true then everyone referenced in the pamphlet becomes suspect as possibly having knowledge or personal attachment to these illegal events. And then quite obviously, if the story is not true but has been presented to be accepted as such then this same risk of inflammatory and/or defamation liability still remains.


In the case of an agent who acts as representative of the material containing the inflammatory statements, well, if it can be proven that he had knowledge of those inflammatory statements then he can be held liable as well. When we examine the Beale Papers in a legal light then the circumstances surrounding the publication “containing authentic statements” present quite the conundrum, indeed because the author has left the entire text completely open to the reader's guess as to how many of those statements, and which ones, are indeed authentic. In fact, he has actually left his readers to assume that the entire text could contain all authentic statements.


So the big question is simply this, why no legal fallout as result of this publication from those referenced in the pamphlet or their families? Did they not have a case to pursue, and if so, why? The obvious answer here is that it's quite possible that they didn't have a case because the information was accurate, or that the information couldn't be proven to be inaccurate. The second option here is that they had all given their approval for these identities to be used, in which case, then why did the author still feel it required that he remain anonymous?


Why all of this extra fuss over the publication's possible legal impact? Because we have to determine if there is any possible truth in the tale, and if so, possibly how much truth, that's why. So what you say?

GREAT question(s)...

 

[bigscoop]

...or by 1885, except for Max Guggenheimer, all the others in the job pamphlet were dead.

Families can still hold liable, estates can still be sued, etc., etc.
Not sure if there's a statute of limitations attached to something like this or not but I don't think there is.

 

[bigscoop]

"Clay, Coles, Witcher, Jackson"......no liability here as these identities are not made clear.
"Chief Justice Marshall".....liability concerns do exist here as exact identity is made clear.

The "parties".....once/if these identities are made clear then liability concerns also exist here, perhaps even criminal proceedings pursued if can be established that the alleged wealth was stolen from Spanish territory. In this same event, "Robert Morriss" could also be viewed as having been an accomplice, dead or not his reputation becomes damaged.

People assume that writing fiction isn't without its liability risk but this just isn't true, especially if you intentionally mislead the public into believing the information is true. And if the work wasn't/isn't fiction then liability concerns obviously abound in the detailing of something like the Beale papers.

Seldom are things as black and white as folks like to perceive them to be.

 

[ECS]

...
People assume that writing fiction isn't without its liability risk but this just isn't true, especially if you intentionally mislead the public into believing the information is true...

As with John Laflin's Alamo diary, Lincoln papers, Lafitte memoirs, etc.

 

[bigscoop]

As with John Laflin's Alamo diary, Lincoln papers, Lafitte memoirs, etc.

If you say so. Got that Innis issue figured out yet?

 

[ECS]

Why does Paula Innis matter so much to you?
You have stated that you believe that she fabricated seeing the iron box and its contents, while you use forger John Laflin's memoirs to support your theory.
Strange dichotomy at work here.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Families can still hold liable, estates can still be sued, etc., etc.
Not sure if there's a statute of limitations attached to something like this or not but I don't think there is.

HOWEVER! The families must provide LEGAL PROOF!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

"Clay, Coles, Witcher, Jackson"......no liability here as these identities are not made clear.
"Chief Justice Marshall".....liability concerns do exist here as exact identity is made clear.

The "parties".....once/if these identities are made clear then liability concerns also exist here, perhaps even criminal proceedings pursued if can be established that the alleged wealth was stolen from Spanish territory. In this same event, "Robert Morriss" could also be viewed as having been an accomplice, dead or not his reputation becomes damaged.

People assume that writing fiction isn't without its liability risk but this just isn't true, especially if you intentionally mislead the public into believing the information is true. And if the work wasn't/isn't fiction then liability concerns obviously abound in the detailing of something like the Beale papers.

Seldom are things as black and white as folks like to perceive them to be.

Looking at Beale Cipher # 3; Larry Hinson solved it and provided NAMES & Family "locations" in his book.

 

[bigscoop]

Why does Paula Innis matter so much to you?
Strange dichotomy at work here.

Great question! Innis matters "because she is the only source with claim that confirms the existence of the iron box and its contents." Obviously, if her claim is legitimate then there is, perhaps, more to the story then simple fiction. Unlike some folks, to me the Beale mystery is not a proposition of who is right or who is wrong but rather it is the search for the possible truth behind the tale. Innis claims the box and its contents existed and I/we cannot disprove that claim. I would think the Innis claim would be a huge factor of consideration to anyone who supports the fiction theory because if the Innis claim is legitimate then there was obviously more to the story then just fiction. Reb posted that PV was a highly respected follow up to the research of Innis and he never once questioned the integrity of her claim. Why? Did he resist this simply to protect her reputation or did he simply lack any reason/evidence to question her claim? The fiction theory is quite simple to manage until one is confronted with the claim of Innis, the claim that iron box and its contents existed, and then the fiction theory becomes suddenly weakened and without explanation.

Now at this point we can begin to grab all manner of fabricated air in support of the potential inaccuracy in the Innis claim, however, Innis was highly respected and also considered to be a local expert on the subject and her claim confirms that the iron box and its contents existed. And if true, how then can we be so certain that the story is just a complete work of fiction? Fiction theorist have been struggling with the Innis claim ever since these fiction theories were born and since you are a powerful advocate of this fiction arena then you must struggle with it also. So I ask again, how have you proven that the Innis claim was/is inaccurate?