Regarding Pam Hemphill's Book About The Protest, And Plagiarism.

This story will be told in greater detail in the upcoming book I am writing about the Dakota Access Pipeline protest, but I wanted to make some things public before then because of what I'm seeing said by a woman who wrote a book about the protest as well. Basically, she's calling me a liar.

Pertinent links:

No, I'm Not A Liar

First, a list:

1. I don't begrudge anyone who takes it on themselves to write a book. I have no problem with someone else writing their own book. It's hard work, and I respect people who create instead of destroy. I encourage anyone to write their story.

2. We all have a different tack, and so our own ideas, philosophies, research, and language will make each book unique and valuable in its own right. Because of the things that make each book unique and valuable, it is important to not copy someone else's work. Otherwise, it's just echoes.

3. As I said in a message to the woman, trying to explain how hard she had worked on her book: hard work does not justify theft of copy, ideas, or other creative work. Nor does "being on the same side" (whatever that means) justify theft. If you truly believe you're in a battle on the same side, you don't steal from your fellow soldiers.

4. I'm not after personal glory or wildly huge sales. I fully expect none of that, and that actually pleases me. I simply wanted to give a voice to people who weren't heard during the protest, and to give legs to some counter-ideas about what happened. That's the only reason I'm even writing this book which, I might add, has been a huge task and, combined with my regular jobs/work, a beast I want to finish, move on from, and never revisit again. I am sick of thinking or talking about NoDAPL; I haven't any desire to make it my meal ticket for the future. This book and its subject matter are not what I'm about, nor part of my identity. I am eager for a quiet, normal life.

The Story of Protest Plagiarism

What has happened involves a spreadsheet timeline I created in August 2016. Initially, it was for my own benefit so that I could better understand the protest. I did share it publicly at some point, because I thought it would be helpful for others. The author of the book in question contacted me on April 19, 2017 regarding access to the timeline. The conversation then continued, in email, about using the timeline for the book she was working on.

A couple of things:

1. I had made it known on Facebook that I was working on my own book, and had set up interviews and connections before that date. She did not give me the idea to write a book. Her claims that I am writing a book to somehow compete with her are ludicrous.

2. Clearly the timeline I had created existed long before she got around to wanting to use it for her book.

3. As you'll see in the emails below, and as I will explain in my own book, I tried to be polite and encouraging, and steer the author in the right direction as far as reference/citation and quotes. Perhaps I should have been more direct and not assumed she understood what plagiarism and copyright are; it is clear she did not understand what I was talking about, and that became even more clear later on.

Please note that there are two issues: copyright, and plagiarism. Plagiarism, which I try to explain to the woman (as you'll see) is never acceptable no matter what kind of "permission" you think you have. You CANNOT lift large amounts of other people's words and use them as your own. The plagiarism aspect has never been addressed by her in all of her talk of copyright.

First, The Emails

1. She requests edit access to my timeline. I received several requests during the protest. I denied all of them. All information was viewable to the public, but I was not going to let anyone go in there and add/subtract/alter the content. The only person who had access and built/wrote that timeline was me.

The woman is requesting edit access to my timeline. 

2. I attempted to explain the view-only status of the timeline. This has to do with various Google Drive permission settings.

3. She asks for permission to use the timeline in her book. She wants to know who can give her permission and if there was a copyright.

4. I try to answer her questions regarding copyright and the timeline. I was attempting to explain that the timeline itself (as an arrangement of items) was not copyrighted, and that I couldn't stop her from using the references there, since they were publicly available news articles. However, I do address the use of the copy that describes the events, pointing out that some are copyright by the article the timeline references, and some were written by me. Those would need proper reference/citation because without that, I assumed she understood, it is plagiarism.

In plain language:

  • The idea of a timeline has been around for thousands of years and is not copyrighted.
  • This timeline has links available to news articles and websites that any person can find since they are publicly available and not behind a paywall. Being publicly available DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN. She continues to claim that, and it isn't true. 
  • Because she could find those same articles listed in the timeline with a search engine, and I don't own the specific news articles, I can't say she can't use them as a reference. Consequently, I can't say she can't use them just because they are in the timeline.
  • I point out that she CANNOT use the full news articles. That's not acceptable for any author to do in a book.
  • I point out that she can quote bits from the articles as long as she references each article. I assume she understood how reference/citation worked and that you have to do that each time you use the information, not just a generic listing at the back of the book that doesn't attach to the content in the book.
  • I point out that the timeline has descriptive notes sections, and that the copy in those sections would be under copyright. I point out that if that copy is in quotes, it is a quote from the news article linked in the timeline, and if it isn't, I wrote it. She needs to cite them each time she refers to them. And I told her I would rather she reword the copy I wrote "instead of us[ing] what I wrote."
How much damn clearer could I be? As an author, you're responsible for this. The onus isn't on me, and NOT ONCE DO I SAY THE COPY IS PUBLIC DOMAIN (i.e. free to use without proper citation or individual permission for the articles) OR THAT SHE CAN COPY OR PASTE IT INTO HER BOOK. Because PLAGIARISM.

Again, there is a difference between plagiarism and copyright. Pam clearly doesn't understand this (as you can see in her continued posts about it in the updates at the bottom). She seems to think she doesn't need to cite, that she can copy massive quantities of text, and this is all permissible because I said the news articles in the timeline were available for anyone to find whether they found them via my timeline or a typical internet search.

She is confusing what public domain means in regards to intellectual property, which is what we're dealing with. At no time in this email conversation did I say she could copy my work and use it as hers. At no time did I forfeit my ownership of anything that was mine. Quoting and specific citation have requirements and limitations. You can quote and refer, but you must cite each time. And you cannot copy massive amounts of content into a book even if you "cited" it. A book cannot be made up of mostly the copy of other people. No publisher will allow that, and I never gave that kind of permission.

I am attempting to explain the view-only status of the timeline, as well as her question of copyright.

5. She apparently doesn't get it and wants to verify that the information isn't copyright. She mentions referencing the information source, but I'm trying to explain that she has to do that for each article, each time she uses it. (In the preface of her book she mentions using a "public domain timeline" which is an absolute bastardization of understanding, and she doesn't even provide the link to the timeline so you could verify the information there.) She offers up some weird profit sharing thing which I ignore.

6. I try nicely to again point her to understanding that she has to reference specific material and not copy the text. "The spreadsheet is full of info anyone could find." (This DOES NOT MEAN PUBLIC DOMAIN in regards to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!) "Just be sure you reference the location of the info (news article, website, etc.) and you are within standards of writing and referencing content in a book." Again, I'm trying to keep her from plagiarism and get her to cite her quotes and references. I assume she understands when you write a book you have to actually WRITE YOUR OWN WORDS most of the time.

Alas, the result is that her published book is far from any semblance of standards. She basically takes the approach of "I used Google to write my book" as a covering to copy and paste from websites that she found through Google. That's the equivalent. There is a paltry listing of vague sources and top-level domains at the back of the book; that's it. Lesson learned here? Forget trying to be nice. Just be blunt and say "no, I think you should go do your own research and not leech off of my work." But I didn't.

It's clear she did not exit this conversation with an understanding of properly referencing the work of others.

Next, The Website Copy

You'll notice we do not talk about her using my actual website and the copy here. This is key, because she does so in her book. Please note that again: NEVER ONCE DO I SAY SHE CAN USE MY WEBSITE IN ANY EMAIL OR COMMUNICATION. The footer of my website is clearly denoted with copyright and trademark notation. I've never given her permission to lift copy from my website. And, if she chooses to quote me or use the website as a reference, she should have cited each occurrence and attributed it to me specifically.  She did not do this.

Please compare what she wrote, and what I wrote:

Please compare this to...

Next, The Facebook Messages

She had sent me an Facebook message on December 30, 2016, then on January 29, 2017, requesting to use various images and information from my website. I ignored her request about using information, and did not give permission to use images when I finally responded to her messages in January.

Nowhere in that conversation do I agree to any form of compensation from Pam, nor do I give her permission to use my drawings or website material. At no time do I forfeit ownership of my intellectual property.

For the next months, I watched her post online in local groups about her book. I'll not lie; it was annoying to know that she was basing her research off of my timeline which had taken endless hours to build. Yet I tried to be encouraging of her project because again, I'm not an ogre. I was an art teacher at one point and I guess I'm in the habit of encouraging people to create. And I figured that the point of the timeline had been to let people know what was happening here, so I couldn't very well tell her to not use the references or order of information that it contained.

My Facebook use dwindled because I was trying to focus on finishing the book I was writing. I hadn't seen the excerpts the woman was posting in the groups. Had I seen them, I'd certainly have contacted her earlier, because they were obviously lifted almost word-for-word from my timeline copy and from the website.

When I was alerted to the similarities, I contacted her privately because I wanted to avoid public drama since that's gross. I believed we came to an agreement in which I was very generous.

What I want you to notice in that conversation is how many times she keeps saying that I said she could do this and that, that I gave permission. Considering how little communication we had, and that I repeated myself on how to use the timeline, it's amazing I "said" all of these things. The reality is that Pam is playing a victim and is reading things into what I said even though I did not say them. Remember, this whole conversation happened after only a couple of emails. That's the extent of our communication up until this point.

Also keep in mind that her book hadn't released yet and though I wasn't giving up ownership of my intellectual property, I was trying to find a way for her to go back and do some minor edits to get the references right. I had NO IDEA how extensive her plagiarism was at this point, because I had not seen the book. I assumed it was a case of missing citation and that she'd written most of the book herself.

The next day, she started spinning a story about being under attack by me because I didn't want her book to succeed, and that I was a liar. It was the same disinformation crap the protesters used to make themselves out to be saints. I contacted her immediately since she chose to make a public drama out of it.

At that point, she blocked me.

You can see all of this conversation, and all future images regarding this matter, in a little album I created with screenshots, here. By the end of the final messenger conversation, she had deleted the post, blocked me on Facebook, but continued to insinuate this situation was a case of her being the victim.

I'm not pleased by either the theft of my work, nor of the lying about my character. She is not the victim. I am frustrated that I was pulled into some pointless drama that is very much like what made the protest so disgusting: a persecution complex that refuses to own up to your own actions.

At some point, when I am finished with my own book, I will begin the unpleasant task of reading her book and comparing it to the copy on my timeline and website. If anyone reading this is a masochist and wishes to do this, feel free to let me know what you find. I will update this post as necessary.

Mostly, I'm angry that this woman dragged me into the mud for pointless drama, just to defend my own work.

Comparing Pam Hemphill's Book To Other People's Work

I purchased a copy of the first edition of her book, which was published through Amazon's self-publishing company CreateSpace. When that book was pulled, she issued a second edition of the book on The examples I use below are from the first edition.

I literally randomly opened the book in various places and found this many examples of plagiarism. I've no doubt a hard and closer reading would reveal far more. But this is to show people who think I am lying that the book has no shortage of plagiarized content.

I'm going to refrain from talking about grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. That's not what I'm here to talk about. There are many, many examples, but I'll just pull a few to illustrate what I'm talking about.

1. The citations.

When Pam says she used citations, she is referring to pages 335-339. There is a list of 113 "citations." Starting at citation 101, she gets closer to a proper full citation. The rest are vague listings of upper-level domain names. In all cases, none of these citations are connected to the specific place in the book where that content is found. So, as you are reading, you have no idea if what you're reading is connected to that citation, and you can't look at the reference to verify it. This means the work, facts, and words of others (not just myself) are not properly attributed. You have no idea whose words/work you're reading or if the facts come from an actual source.

In fact, the only reference to any of my copy is a weird one, to my Facebook profile. The timeline isn't found there.

The front of the book says, in a disclaimer, that she does "not claim or guarantee that statements, events or dates are hundred percent (100%) correct, as information was obtained by public domain DAPL timeline, including varies posts, videos, articles, and websites. These links are provided in the back of the book. The majority of the names were executed to protect the privacy of the people involved." (sic) (emphasis mine)

2. A list from my website.

First, a clip from my website, which I published on December 25, 2016.

Next, page 292 of Pam's book. This is not cited or attributed in any way, despite obviously coming directly from my web page.

3. Timeline plagiarism.

First, read this snippet from my timeline. Note that since the words in the notes section aren't in quotes, it means I wrote them. As you recall, I explained this to Pam in the email, saying she would have to properly reference/cite any of the notes section. So, this copy should be referenced to me specifically.

Now compare it to these samples from Pam's book.

There are other similar examples to this, but you get the idea.

4. Taking someone else's idea.

I'd spent considerable amount of time creating a video to illustrate the idea that the black snake wasn't the oil pipeline, but the hate this protest had spawned. I published that video to YouTube on December 27, 2016, and also published a photo to fend off the any potential suggestions that I didn't completely create the work from music to content to artwork to idea.

The idea was completely mine, and I also incorporated that video into the website I'd published along with a discussion of that concept. The website carried that as its main theme/graphics way back in December of 2016!

Now check out Pam's book. Nowhere does she give credit to this idea, putting it out there as her own, apparently.

5. Taking the easy way out.

Writing a book is a lot of work. I finished one back in May 2016. I know.

But I am completely disgusted to have to deal with a person who makes repeated claims to me about how many hours of work she put into her book as a justification for her behavior, as if her alleged effort excused her theft of words and ideas. Consider this snippet from her book:

"Let's admit it," she writes. "[W]ho like myself, has time to research the facts?"

Indeed. Who has the time?

You know what? I'm damn busy. I have a regular job, freelance writing clients, art clients, and other odd jobs. In between all of that, I managed to save tens of thousands of files from the protest, organize them, write a timeline and continually gather research for it, and work on my own book which meant a lot of reading of other books that I may barely reference in my own project but read simply to get a better understanding of some things. This is just a snippet:

I've also spent endless hours reading online articles, court cases, collecting them, printing them categorizing them, saving them...reading books, taking notes. I've attacked them with highlighters and tabs and notations.

I've been gathering maps, drawing maps, and tracking down photos that I have permission to use. I've driven the protest route, and taken photos from an airplane and the ground to get a better understanding of the geography. I've driven to meet people all over to interview them, and spent many hours transcribing those interviews. I've played email tag to get people to talk to me, and had some renege after doing the interview work. I've written tens of thousands of words of copy that will never make it into the book I'm writing due to editing.

Every day I get someone prodding me "when will you be done?" which is a stressor all of it's own, a tricky balance of trying to create a good book or rush to get it out there so people leave me alone. It doesn't help having to deal with this plagiarism situation, which is a distraction in completing the project.

That's the work I'm talking about, and it is disgusting and offensive to even have to be a party to a situation in which someone not only takes the work of others without crediting them, but by that action ends up saying that their work and time has no value. Even worse  is to watch that person discredit me publicly to make people think my future work is not to be trusted, that I am a liar, and smear my reputation as a writer. That has future implications for me that go beyond just this one project, particularly since Pam lives in all the way over in Idaho but is getting people who live near me geographically (i.e. future customers of my future books) to question my honesty and ability.

The Updates: Pam Hemphill Continues Her Story

UPDATE (September 8, 2017): (See below screenshot). I would love to see the email the woman says she has. Since I categorize and archive nearly every email I receive, and don't have any others pop up in my search with her name besides the ones I posted here, I surely would be surprised. So, if she has the email, I hope she makes it public. Please encourage her to do so.

UPDATE (September 9, 2017): So this is what gaslighting feels like.

I left an honest review of the book on I am a verified purchaser of the book, one of the few who left reviews. The review was removed. (Update: I attempted a second review the next day; see below).

I've gone through the first 17 pages of the book, and about 80 percent of it is lifted directly from the timeline. The initial pages are Pam's own story, which is valuable and written in her own language.  It is a shame her book wasn't more of her own story. I would encourage her to write that. Some other sections of copy I recognize as the work of others. The writing style is clearly not the same as Pam's in those sections. This plagiarism is easy to verify. There is a vague listing of websites at the back of the book where this copy was taken from, but that is not reference/citation. These references aren't linked to specific chunks of text in the book, nor are the specific citations except for a few towards the end of the list which are still not associated with specific paragraphs in the book.

Pam responded on her Facebook page again suggesting I somehow reneged on an agreement and am lying and am a protest supporter and a lefty and wouldn't agree to half the profits--I have no idea where she is getting any of that. Please review the emails contained in this blog post and see for yourself.

Again, everything is here for you to see and judge for yourself.

Should Pam remove the Facebook post, I have a saved PDF copy of it in the gallery, which is here. A woman named Jodi is also joining in agreement with Pam, suggesting that I do not have the rights to my intellectual property in the timeline nor the website, though I can't tell if she has read any of this documentation or not and fully understands what is going on. Frankly, her responses confuse me. I wrote massive amounts of copy on a website -- that's my intellectual property. The footer of the website is full of copyright notation. The copy, the video, the music in the video, the art in the video, the cartoons -- this is all work that I created on my own. Not once in the emails or messages do I agree to half the profits or some other deal; I ignore those things in her email and try to point her in the direction of properly referencing sources.

As you can see from everything I've provided here, these statements that are being made about me are not true. Absolutely all information is here for the world to read, and if you have a copy of the book, you can compare it to the timeline and website yourself. The proof is all right there.

This is someone who seems to view herself as a victim of unwarranted attacks. I can't speak to whatever other responses she is getting from her book, but my concerns here are not unwarranted nor an "attack." They are merely me trying to deal with plagiarism.

UPDATE (September 10, 2017): Pam did not ask me if I was using my material for a book. Please look at all of the emails and screenshotted messages. You won't see that. If she has something that shows her asking me and me responding, I'd love to see it, as I surely don't remember nor have that.

The question of whether I was going to use my own writing in a future book has no bearing on this, however. I'm not sure why she is using that as an argument.

Seeing people apparently indifferent or ignorant to the issues and workings of copyright and plagiarism, as if the aspect of copy theft doesn't have an impact on the reliability or verification of the book in question, makes me point to my website's copyright page for enlightenment.

If people think this issue isn't important, then the next time someone takes credit for something you've done at work or claims anything you do, don't complain. That's what is being suggested here, that I ought to just "live and let live." This is my livelihood. This is creative and financial theft. This should bother people who say they care about the truth.

UPDATE (September 12, 2017): Here is the latest Facebook post from Pam Hemphill (if she deletes it, you can find images and a PDF of it in the gallery).

I have now changed the post to include her name in the title, and will use her name instead of "the woman" in the post from here on out. Words in titles get picked up more in search. I had not used her name in an attempt to protect her from future Google searches on her name so that this mess would not be associated with her, but as she sees fit to continue to say things that are untrue about me, including getting her friend Jodi Rocco to seemingly say that I don't own my own work, I will use names. She is using mine, I will use hers.

Pam claims to have an email that I neither have, in all of my thousands of saved and categorized emails, nor do I have it in my Facebook messenger.

I would surely love to see this email she references. According to her, she has an email which has me clearly stating that I, in writing, refuse half the profits, refuse being an author, and state that I am not interested in writing a book.

Be clear--she says I say this.

The reality is she takes me ignoring her requests as me saying "no." No response is simply no response. It's me not wanting to get involved with her, and as we can see now, that was for a good reason. This is the same pattern she's making in all of her claims. By simply offering something, whether or not I accept or even respond, she tucks away in her head as "Julie said this." This is not healthy thinking.

Since she has clearly not understood anything in the previous emails despite plain language, my guess is that she thinks the following are me somehow doing what she describes:

Please note I did not respond to her, neither accepting any form of compensation or giving her permission to use what was on my website. If every random person who contacted me with some kind of offer could construe that my silence was a verified answer, think of the mess that would be.

In this email, she says "I will be giving you parts of the sells". I don't agree to that, I don't accept it, nor do I mention it when I reply. I ignore it.

UPDATE (September 15, 2017): On September 12, following Amazon's instructions, I supplied all of the information that you see in this blog post to Amazon, explained the situation, and swore to the truth of my statements. I provided a link to this blog post for them to read. I cannot make Amazon do anything. They made the decision to pull the book, which was published via CreateSpace (owned by Amazon) based on the information I provided and their own judgment. It appears that Amazon agreed with me regarding copyright infringement and/or plagiarism.

At 3:15 am this morning, I received an email from Pam telling me that her book had been pulled from Amazon. I will not be responding or having any future communication with Pam, not out of spite, but because it is clear communicating with her doesn't bring clarity.

I could say a lot about her email response to me, but I won't. There's no point.

(UPDATE) She continues to email me, claiming I am harassing her. I have not responded to her.

I have not discredited her on Facebook. In fact, I've not talked about her at all on my Facebook page other than when I posted the initial link to this blog post back on September 7, 2017. Pam, however, has talked about me on Facebook, and called me a liar.

UPDATE (September 17, 2017): This screenshot was left, I believe, on Friday, September 15. Apparently Pam Hemphill thinks she is going to take me to court.

This continues on today. I'm not sure why she is doing this. I contacted Amazon regarding the book. They gave no indication they were putting it back in the store. I'm not against Pam writing her own book about the topic. I merely want her to use here own words and properly cite where she gets her information. That is not too much to ask. I'm not trying to "silence" truth, but trying to ensure that the book she writes is well-documented and not the words of others.

Please note that my book will be nothing like Pam's book, nor did I ever say it would be. Again, this is not a question of me being upset she got her book out first. It's a question of plagiarism, attribution, and respecting the work of others.

Pam Hemphill seems to think that if a person doesn't have a piece of paper proving they have a copyright, they don't have one. We all know that isn't true. There are inherent copyright protections in the law upon the moment of creation. The only reason to register a copyright specifically is if you end up embroiled in litigation or to make a clear record from the get go. But we all have, upon creating a work, some form of copyright over the work created. We own what we make.

It is interesting to note that in Pam's book, she has copyright information (no doubt provided by CreateSpace, her publisher, as a standard template) on the first pages telling people they cannot copy any content in her book. She obviously expects others to respect her work in the same way I expected it in this situation.

Please don't think my silence on these accusations are an indication of fear, that they are correct accusations, or that I am ignoring them and doing nothing about this situation privately. I don't take such situations lightly, where my character, work, and future projects are besmirched and possibly harmed by damaging statements made about me and my reputation. What she is doing is having an effect on my future works and therefore, income. These are the comments she is allowing on her Facebook page by people. For example, this person, Jeremey Schmitt, is talking about me as being the liar:

I am fully aware of what she is saying about me and my work online, even though I have not responded to her. I have made everything public for the world to see to make their own decision. I've not lied about this at all, not once. I have been upfront, honest, and fair in my dealings in this situation.

UPDATE (September 21, 2017):  No copyright issues have been resolved. Nothing has changed. This is a false statement.

No one is pulling the strings. That is paranoia.

UPDATE (October 7, 2017): For the past week, I've been on a road trip and away from my computer. These are Pam's comments in recent days while I was gone. 


First she has an attorney, then she can't afford an attorney, then she's taking me to court, then no, then yes.

"The left is very hard to fight" -- what does she mean by that? No one would every consider me politically left-leaning. What would politics have to do with an issue of plagiarism and copyright?

This is paranoid thinking, in which everything is a political battle.

At what point is this libel? I have not lied. I am not evil. I am not writing the same book. I have not been in communication with her. If a publisher pulls her book, they do so on their own judgment based on all the information available.

UPDATE (October 17, 2017): In a sworn statement, Pam Hemphill swears she is the owner of the copyright of the material in her book. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Let's have a look at the latest saga.

1. Beware of, self-published authors, because they don't default to protecting your work.

Pam Hemphill has had her book pulled once from Amazon (not to return) and twice from Lulu's policies seem to require author's whose work has been plagiarized to pay for legal action in order to protect it. It's not enough that you wrote it and own the copyright; you have to pay money to protect it.

It is important that other self-published authors understand that about Lulu as far as how they value authors and their rights. Amazon was immediate and decisive, once presented with clear evidence of plagiarism, but Lulu uses form emails and PDF forms and requires authors to pay money for legal action in order protect their work. I want other self-published authors to be wary of Lulu.

2. Pam Hemphill lied on a sworn statement.

This was pretty ballsy, saying on a sworn statement, punishable by legal action, that she owned the copyright to the material in her book. It wouldn't take much for any newspaper or website listed in my timeline to find where their material was lifted and put in her book and go after her.

P.S. I now have all of her personal information, since Lulu sent a copy of the sworn statement to me. Having her address will make it super easy to send legal documents to her, should I decide to do so. 

Look at the image below. Here is an interesting glimpse into Pam's sketchy reasoning.

1. She asked me to make sure the information wasn't copyright (is the information copyright, or the copy? Even the question is stupid.)

2. I respond that I "can't exactly say no" which Pam cherry-picks as the answer to her question, but Pam is conveniently leaving out the sentence that came before it in which I clearly state it is in regards to using the timeline as research for her book, not blatantly plagiarizing the descriptive copy associated with the story links!

3. I'm not protecting Pam Hemphill's email address any more.

I could use this method of "proof" and circle phrases here and there in various documents to prove just about anything. This is the email version of a soundbite. Pam Hemphill is no better than a protester when they edited their videos and chopped of necessary context.

Notice this part of the sworn statement where she says that she was told "that all the material was not copyright". Review everything in this blog post. I actually make it clear that that's not the case and tell her she can't use copy word for word. Some of the copy in the timeline, which I indicated as quote, comes from newspapers and others. I told her that. I can't give her permission to their work. I merely referenced it. Yet she lifted their copy as well as mine. They would all have a claim against her.

Whoo wee! She put this on a sworn statement.

3. Pam Hemphill's is the worst book I've ever read, on every possible level.

I'm going to be blunt about Pam Hemphill's book. It's the worst book I've ever read. It's barely readable. It actually does damage to the truth, and to the cause she says she's supporting, because it is so badly done.

I have absolutely no fear that anything she attempted is in any way, shape, or form a competitor of my own work. Her book is full of horrifying typos, grammar errors, factual errors, misspellings, logic disasters, switched font faces, bad formatting, and no semblance of a unifying narrative. It is barely coherent. 

It is clear, as you try to read the book, that the copy is coming from different places as the tone and language uses abruptly shifts. You can also see the changes in things like apostrophes and quotation marks, a clear indicator to anyone who understands copy and paste into programs such as Word, that the copy was lifted from various sources and not typed out on Pam's computer by Pam alone. 

There is an infamous book called Atlanta Nights that was purposefully written as horrible as possible by various authors to test the legitimacy of a publisher. I read that book. It was awful. But it was a glorious literary revelation compared to Hemphill's book. (Ironic that both books would be published by

4. Pam Hemphill is basically nuts.

Pam's narrative is that I'm angry because I was going to write a book like hers. If God is merciful, I will never, ever write such a train wreck of a book. The project I am working on is absolutely nothing like her book for which I am eternally grateful. 

Pam's narrative is that I gave her permission to plagiarize. I did not. No one is ever given permission to plagiarize. Authors get in trouble for plagiarizing their own work, so plagiarism is never acceptable. Frankly, I don't think Pam even understands what the word "plagiarize" is.

Did I mention she signed a sworn statement that she owns the copyright to a severely plagiarized book?!?! 

Her rambling Facebook messages and threatening poor-me 3 a.m. emails and bizarro-land YouTube videos that barely make any sense--I'm not an advocate of book burning, but I would make one exception, as it turns out. Pam Hemphill is an example of a regretful connection that transpired from this protest. Life would be better if I never knew she existed, but she pushed her way into my existence and burrowed in like a tick and is propping up a victimhood lifestyle by flagellating in my direction.

Fun facts:

1. I did speak with an attorney.

2. I did register my timeline and website with the U.S. Copyright Office. (Nope. Pam doesn't own the copyright.)

3. I made benign decisions regarding legal actions at the beginning because I thought Pam and I could work this out amicably and I didn't want to cause her fear or stress. At this point, I care very little about what happens to Pam Hemphill. She has shown herself to be ignorant, manipulative, slanderous, and a terrible author. I treated her as kindly and fairly as I could for as long as I could, but I am done. I have no respect for her, her work, or her ethics.

UPDATE (October 19, 2017): Hopefully this is the end of it, but considering what I've seen of Pam Hemphill so far, I doubt it. Let me reiterate that all I did was point these publishers to this blog post and they made the judgment call themselves. Pam has never offered any new information that you don't see in this post; I have hidden NOTHING and put everything online. So clearly others, judging for themselves, agree with me.