Trine Day publisher Millegan cooking the books

[Alex Foyle]

Scott R. Kaiser recently had his book about his father published by Trine
Day.

http://www.amazon.com/Edwin-Kaisers-Covert-Life-Assassination/dp/1937584453

On his Facebook page Kaiser made these comments about the unagreed changes
that were made to his book by Trine Day publisher Kris Millegan and his
team of creative editors:

"Fuck it! I'm just moving on with my life, can't stress over the changes
that were made in my book without me approving it what the fuck good is it
going to do? I already know who did it, and although they'll never admit
to it. It certainly benefits them, shit! They should pay me royalties!
Fuck it moving on!"

"Yeah, you know I don't see how my book turned from telling my father's
story, bringing MY father back to life, telling the truth to JFK's
assassination?!? This was suppose to be about my father! Not turned into
some three ring circus only to benefit others I just don't get this shit!
I can't even sleep at night. No one will ever know how I really feel...
Excuse me have to get some tissues now."

"I want to tell folks right now, Luis Posada NEVER told me that James
Files was in Dallas, that information somehow found it's way into my book,
I never wrote that, that information was plugged in by someone. Also,
someone plugged in "According to Judyth Vary Barker (Author of Me & Lee)
.... Dots means information that follows, I never wrote that either. I
just don't get it!"

"JVB plugged in her information and (Author of Me and Lee) in my book and
I didn't catch it in time, and Wim D. plugged in information stating that
Luis Posada told me that Files was in Dallas, and I never said that Posada
told me that Files was in Dallas, the only thing I ever said Posada told
me was that Files was apart of the company, when Wim found that out he
started to push the story that would otherwise benefit him, as for JVB can
you imagine if my book would sell millions of copies she would have some
free advertising wouldn't she? As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty fucked
up to jump on the bandwagon, and plug in information into my book for
their benefit. WWED What would Edwin do? This is certainly not cool, I'll
tell you I would never in a million years plug my information into someone
else's book out of respect."

"Had JVB asked if she could plug her book in my book with any information
she may be privy to I would have said no, and had Wim said he wanted to
plug in information about Files other then the information Posada already
told me I would have said HELL NO!"

So super shyster Kris Millegan actually falsifies others stories/books by
inserting bogus references to his wannabe whistleblower JVB and Dim
Wankbaar's bs about Files. Way to go, Trine Day.

[Anthony Marsh]

What else would you expect?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

He apparently is not giving up his right to remain silent ............
and what do other publishing houses have to say about this?

[Mike]

When you write a book (or article) do you have to give them your
copyrights? And if you do that do they then legally have the right to
change what you wrote?

And if you do write a book and the publisher agrees to publish the book
and you do assign the copyright as part of the publishing agreement do
they have to publish the book?

And if you do all the above and they do change things or do not publish,
do you have the right to publish anything else about that subject
anywhere else?

[Pamela Brown]

This is terrible.

>
> "Had JVB asked if she could plug her book in my book with any information
> she may be privy to I would have said no, and had Wim said he wanted to
> plug in information about Files other then the information Posada already
> told me I would have said HELL NO!"
>
> So super shyster Kris Millegan actually falsifies others stories/books by
> inserting bogus references to his wannabe whistleblower JVB and Dim
> Wankbaar's bs about Files. Way to go, Trine Day.

This has to be illegal.

[Pamela Brown]

Huh? You can't just write stuff under someone else's name and publish it,
can you?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes.

> And if you do write a book and the publisher agrees to publish the book
> and you do assign the copyright as part of the publishing agreement do
> they have to publish the book?
>

No.

> And if you do all the above and they do change things or do not publish,
> do you have the right to publish anything else about that subject
> anywhere else?
>

Yes.

[Mike]

If a publisher does not publish the book does he forfeit his ownership
of the copyright? Can you then go and find a different publisher or
publish it on your own?

[Anthony Marsh]

Great strategy. If you can't win an argument threaten your opponent
with legal action.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

It's called "editing." The final words published in any book are those
approved by the editor. In an ideal world, the editor works with the
"author" and makes sure the edits that are made are done to correct
grammatical mistakes, or to improve the flow of the words and ideas. But,
often as not, edits will be made that change the content, sometimes
without the writers' approval. While researching early newspaper accounts
of the Kennedy assassination, for example, I came across multiple versions
of many of the stories--even stories under the name of a single writer. It
was clear from this that, at least in the newspaper business, editors
would change words attributed to others without even flinching.

[Anthony Marsh]

If he bought it he owns the copyright even if he doesn't publish it.

[Pamela Brown]

No. They have the right to edit what you have written, but the writer
should have to approve the galley proofs before publication. Inserting
information behind the author's back has to be illegal.

>
> And if you do write a book and the publisher agrees to publish the book
> and you do assign the copyright as part of the publishing agreement do
> they have to publish the book?

The rights relate to who gets royalties etc from the book. Many writers
these days keep the copyright for themselves through on-demand publishing.

>
> And if you do all the above and they do change things or do not publish,
> do you have the right to publish anything else about that subject
> anywhere else?

I don't see why not.

[Pamela Brown]

Of course. If there is no contract, the writer has complete control.

[Pamela Brown]

Marsh is clueless on this...

What is the purpose of having a publisher if they go and insert false
material under you name?

[Pamela Brown]

The writer should be asked to correct the galley proofs, which should
contain everything that is going to press. Editors do make changes and
the focus can be changed, but there should be nothing inserted that the
writer is not aware of. Two different things.

[Mike]

What if the publisher did not buy the copyright but it was a requirement
of the publisher that the author grant to the publisher the copyright in
order for the publisher to agree to publish? Under those conditions if the
publisher does not publish does he forfeit his copyrights and do they
revert back to the publisher?

[Mike]

On 2/1/2015 9:32 AM, Mike wrote:
> On 2/1/2015 9:05 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> What if the publisher did not buy the copyright but it was a requirement
> of the publisher that the author grant to the publisher the copyright in
> order for the publisher to agree to publish? Under those conditions if
> the publisher does not publish does he forfeit his copyrights and do
> they revert back to the publisher?

OOPS made a boo boo in the previous reply.

The line should have been

"Under those conditions if the publisher does not publish does he forfeit

his copyrights and do they revert back to the AUTHOR" (not publisher as I
previously wrote)

So here is the entire question again...

What if the publisher did not buy the copyright but it was a requirement
of the publisher that the author grant to the publisher the copyright in

order for the publisher to agree to publish? With those circumstances if
the publisher does not publish does he forfeit his copyright and does it
revert back to the author?

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't forget that there is usually a contract. If the publisher just
keeps delaying can the author prove that is refusing to publish?

[Anthony Marsh]

Proofreaders often make mistakes because the are not familiar with the
subject and don't have the common courtesy to ask the author if that's
really what he meant to say.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/1/2015 6:57 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:

If there is no contract the writer is a complete idiot and gets what he
deserves.

[Anthony Marsh]

How about deleting Libel?

[Pamela Brown]

No, 'proofreaders' often make mistakes with spelling. An editor can make
mistakes with misinterpreting what the writer said. However, the galley
proofs give the writer the opportunity to theoretically correct both.

[Mike]

Are you saying that any change an editor wants to make to a work to be
published first must be sent to and then be approved by the author?

Is this something that is implied or has to be written into the original
publishing agreement?

[Dave Reitzes]

Intriguing.

Dave

[Alex Foyle]

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 3:42:43 AM UTC+1, Dave Reitzes wrote:

> Intriguing.

Indeed and welcome back, Dave.

After following Scott R. Kaiser's posts at Facebook for a while and having
learned a little more about the content of his book I guess he had it
coming that Trine Day would try to make his book more compatible with the
other JFK conspiracy books at Trine Day. Kaiser is not planning to take
legal action against Trine Day, so my pity for him has somewhat diminished
...

[Anthony Marsh]

How the FRAK did this get past the censor?
One of my posts was rejected for saying:
summa cum laude

BTW, "FRAK" is an homage to Battlestar Galactica.

[Pamela Brown]

If someone writing a non-fiction book has put libel into the book, the
publisher should have certainly at least inform the writer of the
illegality of doing such a thing and insist that it be deleted by the
writer. Better yet, they should start asking questions about everything
that writer has written that they are about to publish. But that is
positing that sufficient fact-checking resources are available for an
editor to be able to discern actual libel. In JFK assassination books, it
is my impression that fact-checking is rarely done. However, in this day
and age of on-demand printing, once possible libel is pointed out it is to
to publisher's advantage to insist that fact-checking be done and anything
that reeks of libel be deleted from all future printing.

Ironically, if any actual fact-checking had been done with Judyth's book
the publisher might have grabbed a clue right from the beginning. I think
that is why Judyth's manuscript fell into so many potholes on its way to
publication -- including and especially the agent in London whom Judyth
was referred to through Anthony Summer. That agent sat on the book for
months, refused to pitch it, and when Judyth made demands her material be
returned, sent her a box of newspapers instead of her manuscript.

Pamela
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

This train is off the tracks, lacking facts. Ask Jesse Ventura, who wrote
the foreword to JVB's Ferrie Tale

[Ace Kefford]

Could someone provide some background on who this person quoted is (or
claims to be) and what has him so steamed, please.

[Alex Foyle]

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 9:48:26 PM UTC+2, Ace Kefford wrote:

> Could someone provide some background on who this person quoted is (or
> claims to be) and what has him so steamed, please.

Scott Kaiser is the son of Edwin Kaiser and he has written a book about
his father's "adventures":

http://trineday.com/paypal_store/product_pages/9781937584450-Edwin_Kaisers_Covert_Life/

http://edwinthebook.com/

The Trine Day editors around publisher Kris Millegan inserted several
Judyth Baker and James Files fantasies into Scott's book without asking
him and that's what got him "steamed".

Is that background enough?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Well, who would do such a dastardly thing, unbeknownst to the author in
question? Who would be such a cad?

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. You are big on rumors and innuendo, short on proof.

[Alex Foyle]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:23 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Something like that. You are big on rumors and innuendo, short on proof.

You don't even know what you're talking about, true troll autobot mode as
usual.