Further discussion - Olbers, German Clues and other questionable records.

[Old]

New thread so as not to further derail the Map Thread.

Question to Victor:

Some ways back you said frauds and misrepresentations were the responsibility of the publisher, both legally and morally. That it was the (the editor's) responsibility to fact check/research the author's sources. That didn't ring true to me. Not from a legal standpoint. Morally? I dunno...........can make a case both ways.

Over the last few days I have done my best to determine if that is correct. I have found nothing in case law to support that. In fact, what I have found is an overwhelming attitude of the courts, coast to coast, against placing liability on the publisher. Very few have placed liability on the author either. The only caveat would be where there is overt participation by the publisher and author who knowingly manufactured or perpetuated a falsehood which they knew to be false prior to publication. Even in cases of great physical harm created by reliance on erroneous writings the plaintiffs have not been successful. I direct you to this site for a full discussion on the subject.

Rights of Writers: Oops, I Poisoned My Readers: Can I Be Liable for Publishing Mistaken Information?

Courts seen to universally hold that to place financial liability on unaware publishers and/or authors would stifle free speech and the creative arts.

Liability for libel is a completely different subject and is, therefore treated differently.

I don't claim to have exhausted all possibilities of the existence of cases which support your contention, I just haven't found any. I'm wondering it you have any cases or references in support of unaware publishers being found liable. Settling out of court doesn't count. We all know sometimes that's the cheapest way out.

regards,
Lynda

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old]

As to the important of the Olbers Manifest and the German clues to Corbin book .....The Bible......

The back cover makes a big deal of these new findings. At least by the dust jacket those were "The Cat's Meow" of new news at the time. I think the significance of the obvious fakes has been downplayed. Understandable, but the unearthing of the deception was no small issue.

Here's the highlights of the back cover:

Excerpt Back Cover
………..The research, for the first time in history documents Waltz from birth to the grave. Besides the manifest of the ship on which he sailed to America, there are German translations of the directions to Jacob’s infamous mine given to Reiney Petrasch and Julia Thomas before the old man died. In fact, this landmark text offers historical proof of these and all major speculations that have occurred in the hundreds of books published in the 111 years following the German’s death………

 

[Hal Croves]

New thread so as not to further derail the Map Thread.

Question to Victor:

Some ways back you said frauds and misrepresentations were the responsibility of the publisher, both legally and morally. That it was the (the editor's) responsibility to fact check/research the author's sources. That didn't ring true to me. Not from a legal standpoint. Morally? I dunno...........can make a case both ways.

Over the last few days I have done my best to determine if that is correct. I have found nothing in case law to support that. In fact, what I have found is an overwhelming attitude of the courts, coast to coast, against placing liability on the publisher. Very few have placed liability on the author either. The only caveat would be where there is overt participation by the publisher and author who knowingly manufactured or perpetuated a falsehood which they knew to be false prior to publication. Even in cases of great physical harm created by reliance on erroneous writings the plaintiffs have not been successful. I direct you to this site for a full discussion on the subject.

Rights of Writers: Oops, I Poisoned My Readers: Can I Be Liable for Publishing Mistaken Information?

Courts seen to universally hold that to place financial liability on unaware publishers and/or authors would stifle free speech and the creative arts.

Liability for libel is a completely different subject and is, therefore treated differently.

I don't claim to have exhausted all possibilities of the existence of cases which support your contention, I just haven't found any. I'm wondering it you have any cases or references in support of unaware publishers being found liable. Settling out of court doesn't count. We all know sometimes that's the cheapest way out.

regards,
Lynda

Hi Lynda,


I have two years under my belt in publishing and I will tell you upfront that it was in product development & marketing, not legal. With that said nothing got done/signed without legal review and approval. If you give me some time I will ask for real legal advice about content liability and hopefully post an intelligent response. Which is what your after I hope.


It's ok to call me on my statement but trying to respond to you with case law, well I would honestly be out of my element.


I am a little confused by your quoting me here "fraud and misrepresentation are the responsibility of the publisher" and then suggesting that my statement has no connection to your caveat: "The only caveat would be where there is overt participation by the publisher and author who knowingly manufactured or perpetuated a falsehood which they knew to be false prior to publication."


Seems to me that we are talking about the same thing but perhaps seeing it differently.


There are many high profile cases in the US where publishers have paid record settlements to individuals for fraudulent reporting and misrepresentation. Tabloids are a great example. So, to say that the courts find favor with publishers is simply not something I can agree with.


Will you explain your logic?
Will you agree that "fraud and misrepresentation" are not the same thing as "unaware publishers and/authors"? Two very different ideas.


Is it your belief that the publisher of Mrs. Corbin's book was "unaware" of the books faulty content? It's been said that the publisher pressured Mrs. Corbin (while suffering poor health) to complete her work. That's a bad sign if true and could suggest negligence. Rushing to press without taking the time to fact check.


Here is a secret. Publishers avoid litigation like the plague not because it's cheaper but, because the controversy discourages other authors from signing. It really is that simple. Publishing is a name game.


If you think TNet is a harsh, step into the world of publishing.
But, perhaps you are already there?


I will contribute to this thread but, once it becomes a personal attack on anyone OTHER than me, I am out. I am not suggesting that you personally would do such a thing.

Thank you for the question.

 

[Hal Croves]

As to the important of the Olbers Manifest and the German clues to Corbin book .....The Bible......

The back cover makes a big deal of these new findings. At least by the dust jacket those were "The Cat's Meow" of new news at the time. I think the significance of the obvious fakes has been downplayed. Understandable, but the unearthing of the deception was no small issue.

Here's the highlights of the back cover:

Excerpt Back Cover
………..The research, for the first time in history documents Waltz from birth to the grave. Besides the manifest of the ship on which he sailed to America, there are German translations of the directions to Jacob’s infamous mine given to Reiney Petrasch and Julia Thomas before the old man died. In fact, this landmark text offers historical proof of these and all major speculations that have occurred in the hundreds of books published in the 111 years following the German’s death………

I am having a senior moment. Will you please help me understand what you mean by this (red)?

 

[Hal Croves]

I am going to start reading the parts of Mrs. Corbin's book that are available online. GoogleBooks. So, because the composite list is bogus, I think that the argument about Waltz's partner, his name, is an open one. I have posted previously that evidence of a partner, a friend, by the name of Jacob S. Wisner did exist. That he was an ex Union solider who served in the Army, and for a period, lived in or near Phoenix around the same time a Jacob Waltz lived there.

Here is one more example that a Jacob S. Wisner, carpenter in the Union Army, lived in the Phoenix area.

 

[Hal Croves]

According to the book, Waltz applied for citizenship in Mississippi. This helps confirm that a Jacob Waltz was there at some point before or around September 22, 1847.

 

[Old]

Good morning Victor,

Thanks for your reply and extended discussion.

First up, I was lazy and didn't go back to pick up your actual quote. That's why I didn't put " "'s around it. It was the lazy way out of me setting up my understanding of your statement. That's always dangerous and has proved so in this discussion.

I chose the site I listed and directed you to because I thought (again dangerous) that it gave a pretty good overview of actual cases I had reviewed. It gave them in a way that gave a brief overview and also provided links to more in-depth information if one wanted to wade into the weeds of the issue.

To your question was the publisher aware of the false content? Nothing has surfaced to date to indicate that they were. Do you believe they were? I'm more than ready to listen to any theory that would point to actual complicity on their part with the "source". Rushing the author to complete the project doesn't (in my mind) point to any untoward motive. I don't have first hand knowledge of such but understand that's not an unusual happening. Rushing the author to the point of negligence would have to establish they used unreasonable turn times. I haven't seen any references to that happening, but; am open to the possibility.

I think (dangerous again) there is a huge difference between a publisher and/or author publishing information that they know to be defective; and a publisher and/or author publishing defective information that they have been supplied with by a third party that they have reason to believe is factual but is later found to be defective. My research (granted, not exhaustive) shows universal acceptance by the courts of that same belief. That there is a difference in legal responsibility between the two. That finding, at least to me, sets much lower limits on the amount of fact checking that either must perform to escape liability if data is later found defective.

I think that's where you and I have had a disconnect on this all along.

Your early on statement didn't, as I recall, make a distinction between knowingly publishing false information and publishing what was "believed to be" accurate information that was later found defective. There is a huge difference. You also said something to the effect that the responsibility (perhaps it was blame) had been shifted from the many to the one. Further, correct me if I'm wrong, you indicated that pre-publication fact checking was both a legal and moral requirement for the publisher. I think (dangerous again) you are using current day available information to judge the publisher/author's fact checking ability at the time of publication. I think (there's that word again) that places too large a burden of discovery process for the time period.

As to the downplaying of the significance of finding the now obvious fakes...........that's a reference to our current discussion. I do not know any of the players in this saga. I do know they are or were living breathing neighbors and friends of many in this forum. A bad thing happened. Who and why is not easily discussed because its personal and close to the heart of many here. The ramifications of the outcome of events are however, significant. The dust cover of a book is, as you know, a big deal. One doesn't put mediocre information on the dust cover. One puts the best they have one liners to catch the attention of potential purchasers. The fakes, one proven fake, one highly suspected fake, were the headliner information to sell the book. They were the cream of the crop of new info advertised to catch the attention and sell the books. When one's headline info fails its a big deal.

My questions to you are/were genuine. If you have contrary references I am more than willing to take a look at them. Your earlier comments spoke with authority. I questioned your assumptions not your honest belief in them.

Regards,
Lynda

 

[Hal Croves]

View attachment 1134263And here, in the words of the author herself. "A partial COPY of the document...." It was never meant to be a photographic copy of an official ISTG manuscript. It was a list, reproduced for the book, that was perhaps unknowingly derived from bogus information. In the original notes that the Corbin's obtained, there must be a master bogus list. That's what we want to see.

 

[Hal Croves]

Lynda,

I have too tell you that now, only a little into it, I already like the book. There are the some problems. We know what they are. But there is also some great history that should be required reading for anyone involved in the hunt.

Mr. Corbin, if you are reading this, assign the rights over to me and I will edit Mrs. Corbin's work into something remarkable. That's a serious offer.

 

[Old]

I too really enjoyed the preview version of the book. I've toyed with the idea of purchasing it. I'd love to know what portions can be trusted and which can not. Either way. I've spent more $$ and gotten less entertainment. Probably will make that purchase.

 

[Hal Croves]

I too really enjoyed the preview version of the book. I've toyed with the idea of purchasing it. I'd love to know what portions can be trusted and which can not. Either way. I've spent more $$ and gotten less entertainment. Probably will make that purchase.

Armed with the actual book, the notes, lots of time, and the will to do it, that book can made right.
It perhaps should be made right.
Seems a good way to heal the wounds.