Some Advice Please

[BBB167893]

Hello, everybody.

I received another e-mail from the publishing company this week. They asked me something that, up until recently, I had not even considered.

They asked me if I wanted to use a pen name or other such pseudonym. I haven't answered them, because I wanted to know what you guys thought.

As I said, until recently, I had no intention of using anything except my real name. But, as usual, some of out IDI "friends" tried to scare me (only to find out that I don't scare easily). But it wasn't just the usual "watch out for lawsuits" stuff this time. No--now, our "friends" are going far enough to hint at possible bodily or professional harm!

Specifically, they suggested (threatened) that some of the people I trash on in the book might want to "get even." I can understand that. If it were me, I'd want to get even. That's one of the reasons I wrote this book!

That doesn't bother me one bit. I've got all the protection I need if someone shows up at my door uninvited. But there was something else, too; something I hadn't given much thought. They wondered if it was foolish to attack powerful lawyers. After all, it wouldn't behoove me well to make enemies of the legal community, would it?

At first, I laughed at that assertion. After all, what could these lawyers possibly do to me? I can only assume that they meant people like the former members of the DA's office, Lin Wood and the Haddon Law Firm. Except that these people have no grounds for lawsuits because they are, respectively, political and public figures. But that's not where it ended. My "friends" did not specifically state such, but the implication was clear: these people have the ability to ruin me through other means, including under-the-table ways.

I have to admit, that one made me pause. We here at WS often talk about what bad guys AH, ML, LW and Haddon & Co are, and the Soviet-style dirty tricks they have used on behalf of the Ramseys. Well, it's true! They ARE bad guys, number one. LW would slit his own mother's throat for $10 (except that Papa beat him to it!). And number two, we know from prior incidents that they HAVE pulled dirty tricks on people who got "out of line." The DA's office tried to ruin ST publically, LW sent goons after Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein and threatened them with lawsuits if they dared speak out. And we all know what the Haddon firm tried to pull on Tom Miller. I don't doubt that these people would try anything from ruining my credit score, getting me fired from my job, right up to trying to put me in jail for a crime I didn't do.

The thing here is, what is more important: my own safety, or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, watering the tree of liberty? On the one hand, my book and message would not change if I used a different name. On the other hand, all the problems I just listed just make me WANT them to come at me, because then it would give me a chance to drag them into the light.

Folks, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The only reason these people are able to do these things is because most people don't know about them. In the old Soviet Union, people who spoke out against those in power were often threatened, fired from their jobs, made unemployable, thrown in jail, executed, or disappeared without a trace. Well, this is America. The Founders set it up so people CAN'T do those things openly. They can only get away with it when nobody speaks up.

So, what do you guys think? Should I play it safe, or should I be a total megalomaniac?

 

[katydid23]

Even if you used a 'pen name',the powers that be would still be able to find your real identity. So it would not protect you from them, imo.

 

[UKGuy]

Hello, everybody.

I received another e-mail from the publishing company this week. They asked me something that, up until recently, I had not even considered.

They asked me if I wanted to use a pen name or other such pseudonym. I haven't answered them, because I wanted to know what you guys thought.

As I said, until recently, I had no intention of using anything except my real name. But, as usual, some of out IDI "friends" tried to scare me (only to find out that I don't scare easily). But it wasn't just the usual "watch out for lawsuits" stuff this time. No--now, our "friends" are going far enough to hint at possible bodily or professional harm!

Specifically, they suggested (threatened) that some of the people I trash on in the book might want to "get even." I can understand that. If it were me, I'd want to get even. That's one of the reasons I wrote this book!

That doesn't bother me one bit. I've got all the protection I need if someone shows up at my door uninvited. But there was something else, too; something I hadn't given much thought. They wondered if it was foolish to attack powerful lawyers. After all, it wouldn't behoove me well to make enemies of the legal community, would it?

At first, I laughed at that assertion. After all, what could these lawyers possibly do to me? I can only assume that they meant people like the former members of the DA's office, Lin Wood and the Haddon Law Firm. Except that these people have no grounds for lawsuits because they are, respectively, political and public figures. But that's not where it ended. My "friends" did not specifically state such, but the implication was clear: these people have the ability to ruin me through other means, including under-the-table ways.

I have to admit, that one made me pause. We here at WS often talk about what bad guys AH, ML, LW and Haddon & Co are, and the Soviet-style dirty tricks they have used on behalf of the Ramseys. Well, it's true! They ARE bad guys, number one. LW would slit his own mother's throat for $10 (except that Papa beat him to it!). And number two, we know from prior incidents that they HAVE pulled dirty tricks on people who got "out of line." The DA's office tried to ruin ST publically, LW sent goons after Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein and threatened them with lawsuits if they dared speak out. And we all know what the Haddon firm tried to pull on Tom Miller. I don't doubt that these people would try anything from ruining my credit score, getting me fired from my job, right up to trying to put me in jail for a crime I didn't do.

The thing here is, what is more important: my own safety, or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, watering the tree of liberty? On the one hand, my book and message would not change if I used a different name. On the other hand, all the problems I just listed just make me WANT them to come at me, because then it would give me a chance to drag them into the light.

Folks, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The only reason these people are able to do these things is because most people don't know about them. In the old Soviet Union, people who spoke out against those in power were often threatened, fired from their jobs, made unemployable, thrown in jail, executed, or disappeared without a trace. Well, this is America. The Founders set it up so people CAN'T do those things openly. They can only get away with it when nobody speaks up.

So, what do you guys think? Should I play it safe, or should I be a total megalomaniac?

SuperDave,
I have a pseudonym comprising my given names. I have a friend who is an author, who has penned numerous titles, his name is made up from keltic names.

You can shelter behind a LLC name, a relative of an ex-president of the United States used this method to avoid his assets being tracked.

Your chosen pseudonym might become a Brand Name think Columbo or Dick Van Dyke.

Consider marketing your book, does your real world name matter, will your next door neighbor knock on your door and shake your hand, remarking Excellent book, Dave?

Go and speak to a journalist, they will give you one hundred reasons to have a pseudonym.

The least obvious reason is that there are people out there, who lets just say , have issues, you may wish to go about your daily business unimpeded?

I have mentioned this before, but in legal terms this is serious, to avoid any fallout from the contents of your book, setup a LLC so to ring-fence any liabilities, it can also be used to market your book, and if done properly, and I mean properly nobody, not even the IRS will know your real world identity. All they are concerned with is tax revenue.

So in short, the answer to your publisher is YES I would like a pseudonym!



.

 

[azwriter]

You asked, so I'll answer. From a journalist - use your own name. If you want to promote your book, a phony name will bring the wrong kind of attention. The publicity should focus on the book and not why you are using a flag.

just my O

 

[Peliman]

Personally speaking, I like the idea of an LLC, I'd first run it by my lawyers first to see what they suggest, a good LLC lawyer...just from a practical point of view.

 

[GingBreade]

SD, use your real name. You haven't fought for the truth for X years just to hide right!? DO NOT let anyone bully you into anything. Stand Strong! for what you have done.

 

[katydid23]

I would take someone's book a lot more seriously if they stood by it with their own identity. Especially if they were essentially accusing someone else of rape and murder. To make accusations like that formally and publicly, but anonymously, seems cowardly,imo.

 

[madeleine]

real name,definitely,otherwise it will take the wrong message across.if you don,t why bother anyway,publish it on a blog like so many do who hide their identity.you gotta take responsability for what you wrote imo so either you do it and own up/real name or better let it be.

 

[wonderllama]

I have to go with Azwriter's response.

I pseudonym doesn't add to the credibility of the end product in my opinion.
Especially when in effect, you are stepping out of the shadows of an anonymous websleuthing community with a resource that is filled with such important information, compelling evidence and persuasive argument, that you are reaching out to the general population to read and learn the truth.

Using a pseodonym in my opinion may only make it sound like an anonymous blogger who just says what he wants, especially if someone delves deeper and discovered that 'Clarke Kent' is really 'SuperDave' who is really YOU.

Just my 2c worth.

 

[KoldKase]

These are all good arguments, SD.

My advice would be talk to a lawyer who specializes in this. Your publisher might be able to help you find one if you don't have one already. But of course, I'm hoping you do.

Who knows what these manipulators of the law will do? It probably depends on the amount of success or publicity your book actually has. If you're very successful, they'll be squealing like stuck pigs. They certainly have the means to make your life more difficult. Remember it's not winning a slap suit that counts: it's how much you make your target suffer.

Wood never took any Ramsey case to trial because his clients would have lost money, not to mention, would have been far more exposed by the process. What he did was what all ambulance chasers--so to speak--do: he bled the system, which he knew full well he could do. The common practice for publishers is to pay an amount in a sealed settlement which is less than what it would cost them to defend the suit in court, even if they won. It's simply good business, and publishers face this every day, which is why they have lawyers on retainer.

Certain bitter people love to lie about Thomas "losing" the Ramsey suit against him, but it's not true. I'd bet you all the money I have that Thomas signed a contract with his publishing company--the esteemed, old publishing house of St. Martin's Press--which gave the publisher full control over how any law suit would be handled. Thomas hired his own lawyer because he was named in the suit and his interests were not represented by St. Martin's, but when St. Martin's settled with the Ramseys, Thomas had no choice but to abide by his legally binding contract. He wrote that he never paid one dime out of his pocket to the Ramseys.

The issue is will a publishing company, which is publishing a book that is dead certain to draw law suits if successful, going to leave this all to chance? Not unless they just opened for business and haven't bothered to hire one lawyer with any experience in the industry.

I'm sure this is not new to you, SD. I'm just rehashing it because there is a reason nobody who could has written the truth about the Ramsey murder since Wood cut his path of Ramsey censorship through our justice system.

And don't forget that Rupert Murdoch now owns much of our most powerful media, including news channels, as well. He's a greed-fueled megalomaniac who is the Fox News godfather. Since he bought NBC he also owns MSNBC, and he's in bed with all the Republican conservatives who run this country in one way or another--read rich, powerful, news-controlling men like those who helped John Ramsey nearly win the political seat he sought.

Don't forget how this is the same media who went from reporting about the case as it unfolded--meaning the evidence solidly mounting against the Ramseys--to now reporting nothing but the RST propaganda of "touch" DNA, delusional former DA Lacy's "exoneration," and poor, departed Patsy's suffering, her ransom note-writing skills long buried with her.

I don't want to discourage you, as I believe you full well knew all of this before you began your journey to write this book. I am simply reiterating the walls you may run up against; you're a brave man, SuperDave. We'll do what we can for you, you know that, but I doubt any of us can help much if you find yourself David against Goliath. You may get the truth again out in the open, but it won't cost you nothing. I think Thomas would tell you that.

You are going up against evil people--to the core of their black hearts. They not only wield their power without legal consequences, they believe it's their right and righteousness to do so. If they have no scruples about helping a child molester and killer escape with impunity--and most probably need do no more than make a phone call--your best hope is that they think you're so insignificant you're not worth their time.

Of course, you may have karma on your side. There are always powerful forces bearing in on us which we can't perceive in our small minds--ask Alex Hunter about that. If you're one of those arrows which miraculously comes out of the cosmos and lands dead center in the bullseye because Retribution has arrived--then nothing and no one can stop you.

So that's probably more than you wanted to hear, but it's what I'd be considering if I were publishing a book on this case. God speed, Dave.

 

[KoldKase]

And may I add that I'd be honored to feed you rocks for your slingshot, David, should Goliath come.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
I have a pseudonym comprising my given names. I have a friend who is an author, who has penned numerous titles, his name is made up from keltic names.

You can shelter behind a LLC name, a relative of an ex-president of the United States used this method to avoid his assets being tracked.

Your chosen pseudonym might become a Brand Name think Columbo or Dick Van Dyke.

Consider marketing your book, does your real world name matter, will your next door neighbor knock on your door and shake your hand, remarking Excellent book, Dave?

Go and speak to a journalist, they will give you one hundred reasons to have a pseudonym.

The least obvious reason is that there are people out there, who lets just say , have issues, you may wish to go about your daily business unimpeded?

I have mentioned this before, but in legal terms this is serious, to avoid any fallout from the contents of your book, setup a LLC so to ring-fence any liabilities, it can also be used to market your book, and if done properly, and I mean properly nobody, not even the IRS will know your real world identity. All they are concerned with is tax revenue.

So in short, the answer to your publisher is YES I would like a pseudonym!



.

All good points, UKGuy. But among other problems, it sounds like a very expensive process.

 

[BBB167893]

SD, use your real name. You haven't fought for the truth for X years just to hide right!? DO NOT let anyone bully you into anything. Stand Strong! for what you have done.

Now THAT's talking! Damn right, I didn't work this hard just to chicken out now!

 

[BBB167893]

I would take someone's book a lot more seriously if they stood by it with their own identity. Especially if they were essentially accusing someone else of rape and murder. To make accusations like that formally and publicly, but anonymously, seems cowardly,imo.

I get you. When you strike at a king, you don't do it from behind in the dark. You do it where everyone can see it.

 

[BBB167893]

I have to go with Azwriter's response.

I pseudonym doesn't add to the credibility of the end product in my opinion.
Especially when in effect, you are stepping out of the shadows of an anonymous websleuthing community with a resource that is filled with such important information, compelling evidence and persuasive argument, that you are reaching out to the general population to read and learn the truth.

Using a pseodonym in my opinion may only make it sound like an anonymous blogger who just says what he wants, especially if someone delves deeper and discovered that 'Clarke Kent' is really 'SuperDave' who is really YOU.

Just my 2c worth.

An excellent point. Anonymity means that you're not a real person, and as such, not accountable. (Nice on the "Clark Kent" thing, too!)

 

[BBB167893]

These are all good arguments, SD.

My advice would be talk to a lawyer who specializes in this. Your publisher might be able to help you find one if you don't have one already. But of course, I'm hoping you do.

I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. But, some things you can't ride around.

Who knows what these manipulators of the law will do? It probably depends on the amount of success or publicity your book actually has. If you're very successful, they'll be squealing like stuck pigs.

Interesting word choice, given my Son of the Dragon persona! But I get what you mean. Problem is, if it doesn't have enough success to draw attention, there's no point.

They certainly have the means to make your life more difficult. Remember it's not winning a slap suit that counts: it's how much you make your target suffer.

Wood never took any Ramsey case to trial because his clients would have lost money, not to mention, would have been far more exposed by the process. What he did was what all ambulance chasers--so to speak--do: he bled the system, which he knew full well he could do. The common practice for publishers is to pay an amount in a sealed settlement which is less than what it would cost them to defend the suit in court, even if they won. It's simply good business, and publishers face this every day, which is why they have lawyers on retainer.

You're not telling me anything new. That's how guys like that operate.

Certain bitter people love to lie about Thomas "losing" the Ramsey suit against him, but it's not true. I'd bet you all the money I have that Thomas signed a contract with his publishing company--the esteemed, old publishing house of St. Martin's Press--which gave the publisher full control over how any law suit would be handled.

I can believe that. If the contract I signed is anything to go by, it was probably spelled right out.

Thomas hired his own lawyer because he was named in the suit and his interests were not represented by St. Martin's, but when St. Martin's settled with the Ramseys, Thomas had no choice but to abide by his legally binding contract. He wrote that he never paid one dime out of his pocket to the Ramseys.

I don't know what his publishing contract stated. I know what mine states: the publisher has the right to back out at any time if they think legal problems will arise.

The issue is will a publishing company, which is publishing a book that is dead certain to draw law suits if successful, going to leave this all to chance? Not unless they just opened for business and haven't bothered to hire one lawyer with any experience in the industry.

The people I'm dealing with sure sound like they know what they're doing.

I'm sure this is not new to you, SD. I'm just rehashing it because there is a reason nobody who could has written the truth about the Ramsey murder since Wood cut his path of Ramsey censorship through our justice system.

Don't forget how this is the same media who went from reporting about the case as it unfolded--meaning the evidence solidly mounting against the Ramseys--to now reporting nothing but the RST propaganda of "touch" DNA, delusional former DA Lacy's "exoneration," and poor, departed Patsy's suffering, her ransom note-writing skills long buried with her.

That, among other reasons, is why I wrote the damn book in the first place!

I don't want to discourage you, as I believe you full well knew all of this before you began your journey to write this book. I am simply reiterating the walls you may run up against; you're a brave man, SuperDave. We'll do what we can for you, you know that, but I doubt any of us can help much if you find yourself David against Goliath. You may get the truth again out in the open, but it won't cost you nothing. I think Thomas would tell you that.

You are going up against evil people--to the core of their black hearts. They not only wield their power without legal consequences, they believe it's their right and righteousness to do so. If they have no scruples about helping a child molester and killer escape with impunity--and most probably need do no more than make a phone call--your best hope is that they think you're so insignificant you're not worth their time.

You can't fight evil and come out with a whole skin, KK. If you strike at the king, you must kill him. Of course, that works FOR me, too.

Of course, you may have karma on your side. There are always powerful forces bearing in on us which we can't perceive in our small minds--ask Alex Hunter about that. If you're one of those arrows which miraculously comes out of the cosmos and lands dead center in the bullseye because Retribution has arrived--then nothing and no one can stop you.

You'll make me get a swelled head!

So that's probably more than you wanted to hear, but it's what I'd be considering if I were publishing a book on this case. God speed, Dave.

Just remember: David BEAT Goliath.

 

[Nova]

When did Murdock purchase NBC? Wiki shows NBC Universal now controlled by Comcast; Murdock is mentioned in other links as having demonstrated interest in NBC, but losing the takeover war to Comcast.

I don't really know, but I doubt using a pseudonym is going to protect you from powerful lawyers. At best, it would only shield you from nut cases wanting to avenge the Ramseys or others in the book. I have no idea whether such a threat even exists.

 

[UKGuy]

All good points, UKGuy. But among other problems, it sounds like a very expensive process.

SuperDave,
Its only expensive if you allow other people to run it all for you. Do the research and you will find its all fairly simple, its only the knowledge thats lacking.

If you publish a book then you will be personally liable for any litigation, and by that I dont mean if you lose the case. There will be legal fees up front before you lose, etc. This is generally how it works, you can be deliberately bankrupted , simply to force you to back down.

If an LLC publishes the book then the liability is patently limited to whatever the limits are in the company, big difference, its the company that is litigated against not you. Not only that, the company can just file for bankrupcy, end of story, this means if you have a house, then its safe from being seized as an asset to pay legal fees etc.

I have setup an LLC myself and the largest expense is paying someone to sign off your annual accounts, but think about it, even if you act as a sole trader publishing a book, the IRS will still want to see audited accounts!

You can purchase an LLC of the shelf in Delaware for less than $100. You will have low tax liability in Delaware, much less than say Michigan or Alabama.

Its not that really that expensive, particularly when you just intend to use it a shell company, e.g. you do not intend to become the next Wiley or Random House etc

Setting up an LLC is a form of insurance, and if you become very successful it will limit any tax liabilities, and then you can go down the expensive route of taking advice on how to restructure things etc.

Nolo Publish books on how to setup an LLC in the USofA, among other stuff that might interest you, these are available as eBooks online do a google search, or look here: http://www.nolo.com/products/llc-or-corporation-CHENT.html

I just noticed this, which is simply an example of what I am suggesting. Although I would shop around first, e.g. find out which state has the lowest tax structure, find an accountant and ask for a quote to audit your end of year accounts, e.g. use some accounting program the IRS likes, and this will lower the fee. So OK you might end up paying out say $300, but any litigation will patenty exceed that, easily thousands of $$!
http://www.nolo.com/products/online-llc-TCCLLCUS.html



.

 

[KoldKase]

When did Murdock purchase NBC? Wiki shows NBC Universal now controlled by Comcast; Murdock is mentioned in other links as having demonstrated interest in NBC, but losing the takeover war to Comcast.

I don't really know, but I doubt using a pseudonym is going to protect you from powerful lawyers. At best, it would only shield you from nut cases wanting to avenge the Ramseys or others in the book. I have no idea whether such a threat even exists.

You're right about Murdoch losing his bid for NBC. Thanks for the correction. I must have gotten confused by Murdoch's News Corp obtaining The Washington Post (40 years too late for Nixon).

Comcast is also a conservative group, though. There seemed to be a lot of news hosts switching from Fox News to MSNBC, and vice versa, since that buyout, which might have added to my confusion. It's hard to tell one from the other. They all report the same things, over and over. I believe the days of ethical journalism are over. In bed with our politicians, these corporations have ended investigative journalism deeper than tabloid gossip. Our "news" is as scripted as the corporations deem them to be. IMO, of course.

This modern world has finally become every sci-fi version of Big Brother we feared, IMO. That's how a man who worked for Lockheed Martin could steer the investigation of his child's murder into the ground, IMO.

Public Radio and Broadcasting are the only venues left which offer publicity for topics like SuperDave's book. I've heard some interviews with astonishing authors revealing damning information that should shake our government to its core--and none of that ever makes it to network or even cable news. There's a reason for that--we're being spoon fed what the 1% want us to know.

I hope I'm wrong, I truly do. A lot of my cynicism comes from watching the Ramsey case for 15 years, though. John Ramsey said he wanted to change the way we get our news--the subtext was "You'll hear what we want you to hear." Whether he had anything to do with it or not, censorship has certainly become the norm and that has worked for Team Ramsey to no end.

 

[UKGuy]

You're right about Murdoch losing his bid for NBC. Thanks for the correction. I must have gotten confused by Murdoch's News Corp obtaining The Washington Post (40 years too late for Nixon).

Comcast is also a conservative group, though. There seemed to be a lot of news hosts switching from Fox News to MSNBC, and vice versa, since that buyout, which might have added to my confusion. It's hard to tell one from the other. They all report the same things, over and over. I believe the days of ethical journalism are over. In bed with our politicians, these corporations have ended investigative journalism deeper than tabloid gossip. Our "news" is as scripted as the corporations deem them to be. IMO, of course.

This modern world has finally become every sci-fi version of Big Brother we feared, IMO. That's how a man who worked for Lockheed Martin could steer the investigation of his child's murder into the ground, IMO.

Public Radio and Broadcasting are the only venues left which offer publicity for topics like SuperDave's book. I've heard some interviews with astonishing authors revealing damning information that should shake our government to its core--and none of that ever makes it to network or even cable news. There's a reason for that--we're being spoon fed what the 1% want us to know.

I hope I'm wrong, I truly do. A lot of my cynicism comes from watching the Ramsey case for 15 years, though. John Ramsey said he wanted to change the way we get our news--the subtext was "You'll hear what we want you to hear." Whether he had anything to do with it or not, censorship has certainly become the norm and that has worked for Team Ramsey to no end.

KoldKase,
Well I share your opinion. I reckon you now have virtual government, by that I mean you have an outer shell of apparent bona-fide democracy, but an inner hidden shell comprising those corporations that are involved in pork-barrel politics. I think it was Noam Chomsky who opined Have you ever wondered why most democracies only have two main parties: well thats because the backing corporations do not want to pay for any more!

An american academic even has a theory to explain all this:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition"]Investment theory of party competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


.