11-04-2010, 02:30 AM
JIM AND JUDYTH RESPOND TO GREENLEE, SHACKELFORD, AND WHITE
NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on
another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my
inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be
about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,
and no doubt others. That's a lot of posts for asking about some apparently military
code in the belief that they had come from Barb's page to which his page was linked:
![[Image: 1zh2ts1.jpg]](http://i42.tinypic.com/1zh2ts1.jpg)
"I'm very sorry for the indefensible crap Fetzer posted about your son", he says. But
the only "indefensible crap" posted is his. The code I posted was some that Barb's son
had included on his own Facebook page. Facebook is public and he had it posted there.
My only mistake was to suppose it came from Barb, when it came from another page
linked to Barb's page. It was nothing more than a simple inquiry in one of my posts:
![[Image: 2s0bdd1.jpg]](http://i41.tinypic.com/2s0bdd1.jpg)
I addressed this issue in #1018 and in #1047. I am not the only one who finds it odd
that there is very little about Barb to be found on Barb's Facebook page. We already knew
that Vikelund, Junkkarenin, and McAdams were working together. Now Greenlee joins them
This is a nice example of the critics methodology: find something to attack, no matter how
innocuous, and beat it to death! No one will even protest this genuinely indefensible crap!
JUDYTH REPLIES:
Martin has some facts wrong. Two others were involved as witnesses,
and know that Shackelford did not know everything that was going on.
1) I did not take any advance money. I sent back $300. Another $100
I was told was a gift to keep my Internet on, in Hungary, just as we
decided to work together. I never regarded that as an advance.
2) Shackelford was not privy to all that occurred between Livingstone and me.
3) It is a fact that many edits Shackelford and I did together did not make it
into the final product. While I approved the edits, I never saw the final product.
ANYONE who got the book can see that there are errors and typos, plus many
exhibits were illegibly printed.
4) It is not true that I rejected the book over money. Shackelford may remember
that Livingstone wanted to take the film rights that had already been assigned
elsewhere. I have witnesses to that. This was the crux of any financial objections:
I had already signed film rights elsewhere.
5) It was never about money. Shackelford may have thought so, but my conduct
proves otherwise. I shut the book down. I refused to accept a penny from the book.
6) That was in 2006. The book was flawed and I began a rewrite in a different
format to protect it from any claim by Livingstone that 'his' edit had been taken
elsewhere. It was not.
7) Ed Haslam's book came out in 2007 -- Dr. Mary's Monkey.
8) I realized that Trine Day--a courageous press that published
Dan Marvin's book, Expendible Elite-- and won a court case when green
berets sued Dan over it---had done a good job with Haslam's book.
9) I wrote to Trine Day, but then was forced in the political asylum system.
I sent them the manuscript. I never asked for an advance. I asked for nothing.
I just wanted the book to be in good hands. That was my sole objective. Since
I had entered the EU political asylum system, I was unable to even sign a contract,
and my son was given power of attorney to handle my affairs.
10) After reading my manuscript, they decided to publish it in hardback, and I have
had not the least trouble in getting corrections made. Talk about professionalism and
due care! At every step of the way, everything has been vetted, researched and double-
checked, most of which would never be seen in the book--everything from obituaries
to interviews. I am pleased that the book will have very few errors in it.
11) In contrast, Livingstone wanted to put the book out as quickly as possible because
of the thieves. Shackelford was not privy to everything that passed between me and
Livingstone. Two others were, but Martin was not.
JVB
[quote name='Kevin Greenlee' post='189372' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:52 PM']Hi Jack,
Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized"
version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights
but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at
the bottom of each quotation.
"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
whether the book was authentic.
Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
over other issues entirely."
[URL="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/552f200e928561a2?hl=en%06f4ffeb92d79a0bc"]
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc[/URL]</a>
and
"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had
included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical
Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book
published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:
1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a
chapter at a time over a
period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;
the projected time frame
had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting
expenses).
2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the
same way he had been
publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.
3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for
the book, for a minimal cost.
(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite
responding to e-mails in which
this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told
everything would be "free"--what
that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have
to contribute any money--
she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be
reimbursed out of royalties.)
4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.
This and the layout guy
(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of
royalties, once they began.
5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing
would be done.
She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed
gratitude to the investors and those
putting their efforts into the book.
All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she
wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone
had donated their efforts for ten months, and
the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought
were totally unacceptable.
Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in
full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the
book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get
her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her
back."
She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her
"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,
she was startled when the book was published.
As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of
developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,
even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to
ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns
their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just
expects everyone to walk away.
Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in
addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted
on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to
"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her
advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went
shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,
who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc[/quote]
[quote name='Jack White' post='189369' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:42 PM']
I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.
Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?
What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was
objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript
which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.
Jack[/quote]
NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on
another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my
inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be
about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,
and no doubt others. That's a lot of posts for asking about some apparently military
code in the belief that they had come from Barb's page to which his page was linked:
"I'm very sorry for the indefensible crap Fetzer posted about your son", he says. But
the only "indefensible crap" posted is his. The code I posted was some that Barb's son
had included on his own Facebook page. Facebook is public and he had it posted there.
My only mistake was to suppose it came from Barb, when it came from another page
linked to Barb's page. It was nothing more than a simple inquiry in one of my posts:
I addressed this issue in #1018 and in #1047. I am not the only one who finds it odd
that there is very little about Barb to be found on Barb's Facebook page. We already knew
that Vikelund, Junkkarenin, and McAdams were working together. Now Greenlee joins them
This is a nice example of the critics methodology: find something to attack, no matter how
innocuous, and beat it to death! No one will even protest this genuinely indefensible crap!
JUDYTH REPLIES:
Martin has some facts wrong. Two others were involved as witnesses,
and know that Shackelford did not know everything that was going on.
1) I did not take any advance money. I sent back $300. Another $100
I was told was a gift to keep my Internet on, in Hungary, just as we
decided to work together. I never regarded that as an advance.
2) Shackelford was not privy to all that occurred between Livingstone and me.
3) It is a fact that many edits Shackelford and I did together did not make it
into the final product. While I approved the edits, I never saw the final product.
ANYONE who got the book can see that there are errors and typos, plus many
exhibits were illegibly printed.
4) It is not true that I rejected the book over money. Shackelford may remember
that Livingstone wanted to take the film rights that had already been assigned
elsewhere. I have witnesses to that. This was the crux of any financial objections:
I had already signed film rights elsewhere.
5) It was never about money. Shackelford may have thought so, but my conduct
proves otherwise. I shut the book down. I refused to accept a penny from the book.
6) That was in 2006. The book was flawed and I began a rewrite in a different
format to protect it from any claim by Livingstone that 'his' edit had been taken
elsewhere. It was not.
7) Ed Haslam's book came out in 2007 -- Dr. Mary's Monkey.
8) I realized that Trine Day--a courageous press that published
Dan Marvin's book, Expendible Elite-- and won a court case when green
berets sued Dan over it---had done a good job with Haslam's book.
9) I wrote to Trine Day, but then was forced in the political asylum system.
I sent them the manuscript. I never asked for an advance. I asked for nothing.
I just wanted the book to be in good hands. That was my sole objective. Since
I had entered the EU political asylum system, I was unable to even sign a contract,
and my son was given power of attorney to handle my affairs.
10) After reading my manuscript, they decided to publish it in hardback, and I have
had not the least trouble in getting corrections made. Talk about professionalism and
due care! At every step of the way, everything has been vetted, researched and double-
checked, most of which would never be seen in the book--everything from obituaries
to interviews. I am pleased that the book will have very few errors in it.
11) In contrast, Livingstone wanted to put the book out as quickly as possible because
of the thieves. Shackelford was not privy to everything that passed between me and
Livingstone. Two others were, but Martin was not.
JVB
[quote name='Kevin Greenlee' post='189372' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:52 PM']Hi Jack,
Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized"
version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights
but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at
the bottom of each quotation.
"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
whether the book was authentic.
Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
over other issues entirely."
[URL="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/552f200e928561a2?hl=en%06f4ffeb92d79a0bc"]
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc[/URL]</a>
and
"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had
included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical
Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book
published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:
1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a
chapter at a time over a
period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;
the projected time frame
had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting
expenses).
2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the
same way he had been
publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.
3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for
the book, for a minimal cost.
(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite
responding to e-mails in which
this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told
everything would be "free"--what
that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have
to contribute any money--
she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be
reimbursed out of royalties.)
4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.
This and the layout guy
(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of
royalties, once they began.
5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing
would be done.
She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed
gratitude to the investors and those
putting their efforts into the book.
All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she
wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone
had donated their efforts for ten months, and
the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought
were totally unacceptable.
Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in
full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the
book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get
her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her
back."
She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her
"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,
she was startled when the book was published.
As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of
developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,
even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to
ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns
their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just
expects everyone to walk away.
Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in
addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted
on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to
"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her
advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went
shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,
who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc[/quote]
[quote name='Jack White' post='189369' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:42 PM']
I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.
Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?
What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was
objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript
which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.
Jack[/quote]