"The Sword in Two Hands by Brian Price" review wan

[Aaron]

I categorically reject any attempt to put this on me and my brothers.

The knighthood has no ethics?

[DukeAvery]

Think.

I categorically reject any attempt to put this on me and my brothers.

The knighthood has no ethics?

[Greyson Brown]

I am sorry, but I am failing to see where there was any lack of willingness on the part of anyone to contact the police. The issue with the murder, afaik, wasn't known by SCA members until after the police had arrested him.

I do not disagree with you on the details of the murder. At the time that I posted, I was under the impression that the murder situation was, in fact, hypothetical (I'm not in the SCA, so I didn't know about it). I cannot and do not expect people to take action on things they do not know about.

My statement about the apparent lack of willingness to contact modern authorities was the result of people here implying that such a reticence existed. I included the word "apparent" for a very specific reason; namely, it appears that way, but it may not be that way.

I seem to have done more harm than good in trying to point out what I thought was unfair exaggeration. In so much as I was taking a side, it would have been the side of the SCA (which I felt might be unfairly characterized in Astaroth's post), and it seems to be SCA members who I have offended. Since it turns out that the "hypothetical situation" is fact true, I guess I'll just leave it alone.

-Greyson

[Aaron]

At one time I didn't need to think that knights were chivalric.

Then I didn't need to think that knights were anything but chivalric.

Now I think and I no longer know. I need to stop thinking and just lace my mail gussets in. This situation doesn't impact me a lot, so I should just stand by and let evil happen, right?


Thanks,

-Aaron

[DukeAvery]

Aaron

I respectfully suggest you haven't thought this through. Money is one thing (however important), life and limb another. A man should pay his debts, but that doesn't strike me as 'dire'.

Regards

Avery

[Balin50]

I categorically reject any attempt to put this on me and my brothers.

The knighthood has no ethics?

What do you want "us" to do about it? Why don't you complain about him call the police stand in front of his booth a call him a thief or whatever. There are several people that have tried to get things done and nothing came of them. Now what? Heck I could not even pick BP out of a line up and it is my problem?

Here is what i am going to do im not going to order anything from BP or recommend him to anyone.

So what are you going to do Aaron?

Balin

[Christian H. Tobler]

Duke Avery,

In the case of some of the allegations against Mr. Price, dire is indeed the correct word: he's been accused of ripping off his Pakistani suppliers of leather and other goods. Since those are family and village-based businesses, such behaviors may well have a significant impact on their livelihood.

Nothing involving money is 'dire'...until you can't feed your family.

Respectfully,

Christian

[Greyson Brown]

Aaron

I respectfully suggest you haven't thought this through. Money is one thing (however important), life and limb another. A man should pay his debts, but that doesn't strike me as 'dire'.

Regards

Avery

I was going to leave well enough alone, but I guess I'm not that smart.

Duke Avery,

I would like to address your attention to your own signature: "Either everything matters, or nothing does."

If you actually hold that statement to be true, then monetary loss matters just as much as personal safety. Further more, the willingness or lack thereof of people in authority to act in case of monetary loss matters just as much as people's willingness to act in cases of personal safety.

I am not clear on whether you personally are in a position of authority that would require you to notify authorities per Corpora (sorry, I read exactly the same way Lady Charolette does), but if you are and refuse to do so, that refusal in combination with your signature line makes you appear to be a hypocrite.

That assessment doesn't even bother to get into what is actually right. Only the dissonance of your own words.

-Greyson

[DukeAvery]

I agree with this. Proof of such could perhaps be very useful to the Order and to their Ansteorran Majesties in making ethical choices, I opine.

Regards

Avery

Duke Avery,

In the case of some of the allegations against Mr. Price, dire is indeed the correct word: he's been accused of ripping off his Pakistani suppliers of leather and other goods. Since those are family and village-based businesses, such behaviors may well have a significant impact on their livelihood.

Nothing involving money is 'dire'...until you can't feed your family.

Respectfully,

Christian

[Maeryk]

At one time I didn't need to think that knights were chivalric.

Then I didn't need to think that knights were anything but chivalric.

Now I think and I no longer know. I need to stop thinking and just lace my mail gussets in. This situation doesn't impact me a lot, so I should just stand by and let evil happen, right?


Thanks,

-Aaron

What would you have them do? "Hi, I'm Joe Knight you have never heard of, from a Kingdom on the other side of the country. I read some people bitching about a guy who has a belt, and has been in your kingdom for a while.. maybe. I think you should strip his belt."??

More realistically: What _CAN_ they do?

it's one thing to point fingers at someone who knowingly assists or helps Mr. Price continue to rip people off. Totally a different one to level a charge like you have, at people who might be totally unaware of the situation, then demand they should have, or should now, "DO SOMETHING DO ANYTHING" when they are in no position to do so.

[Christian H. Tobler]

A note of charity, for all posting here:

Despite my wish to not comment on the SCA's internal politics, I must say I can find little flaw with Greg's post about responsibility.

On the flip side of that, with regard to the sentiment "why didn't the peerage clobber Brian earlier", part of the answer to that question is "because that was then and this is now."

I don't say this frivolously. The rise of the Internet has changed how such disputes are seen in wide-ranging, loosely confederated groups like the SCA. What was rumor and hearsay 20 years ago now gets lumped into a thread like this one - and it doesn't go away.

So, please, folks on both sides of the SCA politics here: be both charitable in your assessment of the past, but also mindful of the profound dangers of seeming too eager to 'circle the wagons' in the present.

Yours sincerely,

Christian

[Astaroth]

a guy in jail is going to be bringing his SCA life along with him.

I have absolutely no doubt had Aonghais gotten out of jail on say a technicality before he died or had been convicted in a state where murder for hire gets less than a life sentence than he would have been back in the SCA playing and that people would be defending him against any R&D.

A set of rules like those of the girl scouts would go a long way to prevent a repeat of Aonghais.

[DukeAvery]

To be clear, I am in no position of mundane or sca authority.

Starving someone or denying them shelter, or healthcare, are indeed dire outcomes. A few thousand dollars to an otherwise successful professional is not.

But I am an sca knight endeavoring to do the right thing, the hardest part being what is right in the first place. My sons, you see, they need to know my best guess. If I am good and I am lucky, that will be a little further up the beach from my father.

Regards

Avery

[Greg Mele]

Maeryk,

More realistically: What _CAN_ they do?

it's one thing to point fingers at someone who knowingly assists or helps Mr. Price continue to rip people off. Totally a different one to level a charge like you have, at people who might be totally unaware of the situation, then demand they should have, or should now, "DO SOMETHING DO ANYTHING" when they are in no position to do so.

Actually, that is a conflation. What can be done all depends on whom we are talking about.

What can *anyone* do, who is now aware of this thread?

1. Don't buy goods from Mr. Price, recommend him and tell others why if the topic comes up. That is what someone line Balin suggested that he would do - I think that IS doing something.

2. As above, and actively spread the word about the issue - which is what Galleron has chosen.

That is what the vast majority of people can do. As I pointed out to Morgan, however, the closer to home, the more that can be done. The question is what can and will Ansteorran knights do about this, and more importantly, what will their Great Officers do? In my last post, I articulated some of those actions. The point is that if it is in your own yard and you are in a position to investigate or Corporately charged with doing so and you say, "well, there's nothing for me to do", that is not the ethical high-ground", then to a lot of people that is malfeasance.

So, I agree - for most KSCA they are limited to options 1 or 2. For those of you in Ansteorra, there is option three - tell your Earl Marshal and Kingdom Seneschal you want the matter investigated.

[Greg Mele]

Avery,

To be clear, I am in no position of mundane or sca authority.

Starving someone or denying them shelter, or healthcare, are indeed dire outcomes. A few thousand dollars to an otherwise successful professional is not.

No, that may be true. Although for academics whom need publications and *academically vetted publications*, Brian's failure to submit copies for review (despite promises) and his sitting on two manuscripts by one author for three years actually directly impacted someone's career. Damaging their ability to establish and maintain their academic position, especially with the marketplace being what it is, is pretty dire, IMO.

I think the point Christian was trying to make here is that this is about more than a few thousand dollars lying around. It is a combination of crimes, some of which are intangibles - the damage to trust, betrayal, etc - some are tangible: lost royalties, lost payment for product, stolen intellectual property; and in the latter case, some of them *can* be catastrophic.

I appreciate very much what you wrote about sons and fathers and the struggle to know what is the right thing to do. I hope my recent posts have at least helped provide some data and perspective in that regard.

Best,

Greg

[Mondor]

Sixteen pages and counting for an OP that asked for a book review.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

So, I agree - for most KSCA they are limited to options 1 or 2. For those of you in Ansteorra, there is option three - tell your Earl Marshal and Kingdom Seneschal you want the matter investigated.

The Earl Marshal only has authority to deal with matters on the field.

[Greg Mele]

The Earl Marshal only has authority to deal with matters on the field.

Last I checked, he does act as the Crown's agent in convening Courts of Chivalry. Crowns change every 3 - 6 mos, Kingdom Officers serve for several years. Again, no idea how customary may differ in Ansteorra, but the point remains the same: if you live in kingdom as a peer, you do have a third option.

[DukeAvery]

Greg

While I would describe those situations as 'very serious', I do not wish to further dispute qualitatively and I appreciate your clarifications.

These are troubling allegations.

Regards

Avery

[Trevor]

To be clear, I am in no position of mundane or sca authority.

Starving someone or denying them shelter, or healthcare, are indeed dire outcomes. A few thousand dollars to an otherwise successful professional is not.

Whether Christian has money or not, it does not justify stealing from him.

[Luca Sogliano]

Sixteen pages and counting for an OP that asked for a book review.

The book is not bad, but could be much better. If it were only about the book, I would say it's was worth buying.

[Morgan]

Morgan,

Conversely, everything I wrote to Johnathan is why I must strongly disagree with your post. Unlike him, if I have made the connection correctly, you are a knight living not only in the same kingdom, but the same city as Mr. Price, aka "Earl Brion ap Rhys Thornbird, KSCA".

More importantly, if I have made the connection correctly, you are the Earl Marshal of Ansteorra - a Great Officer of Ansteorra and the person tasked with calling a Court of Chivalry. That doesn't sound very pleasant - not just the calling of such a court, but even the investigating of the need for one - but it is part of the job description.

You had me until that last bit. I'm most certainly not tasked with calling a Court of Chivalry for non-field matters AS the KEM. But to assuage your fears that I'm not taking ANY role, as I stated earlier, I have brought this matter to the attention of the Crown of Ansteorra.

Now, to be very, very clear I would not expect you to have known anything about this, but now you do. You have the assertion of seven of Brian's authors, two of whom are professional academics. Of those two, one is the curator of one of the only dedicated Arms and Armour museums in North America, the other is a Duke, Knight and Laurel of the Society, who is known for his integrity throughout the Known World - someone who has been in the Society long enough to have been at and fought in every Pennsic battle, and we're going on Pennsic XL.

Not to be too offensive, but "None of whom have taken the time to assert legal claim, at least until now."

You have the further testimony of an Eastern Laurel, Galleron, who is *not* a merchant, but is certainly well-known and *not* known to be a party to gossip mongering. He has specifically told all here that Brian used those images without attribution or permission. That is not hearsay, that is testimony.

Which has never been testified to in court.

Now, even if this were all hearsay, shouldn't this be enough to suggest that the Ansteorran Order of Chivalry, its Seneschal and its Crown should at least want to know more about one of its knights is doing at SCA events, wearing a white belt that, no matter where he received it, now links him to your Kingdom? Especially as he is about to head off to sell these products at Gulf Wars, where Ansteorra plays a principle role?

Asked and answered. I stated long before you asked that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Crown of Ansteorra. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that perhaps time to respond is necessary, when the AGGRIEVED PARTIES have not done so, apparently for DECADES? When were you cheated? When did you file suit? How long in between?

But, as Galleron pointed out, this is not all hearsay. Brian Price himself has posted here that he has defaulted on his royalty payments since 2007 and has acknowledged his debt to Talbot. He also acknowledged that he has not exchanged any communication with the injured parties until "outed" on this forum. That is not hearsay, but direct admission.

So a civil matter which hasn't been resolved is evidence enough to bar a person from a livelihood? Now mind you, I ask this question hypothetically, not specifically.

Further, claims of "if he is innocent he will sue us" is a strawman argument. As Lady Charlotte pointed out above, social, academic and fraternal organizations maintain codes of ethics and often remove members long before there is any establishment in court - and at times the conclusions of each do not coincide. As to the argument "but this damages his business, so if he is innocent he will sue us" - what to do you think happens to a professional academic who is thrown out of the AHA for misconduct? I hope he already has tenure, because his job prospects suck.

I'd be inclined to give credence to your supposition that my argument is a straw man, except for the fact that I can prove it's not with a specific law suit that cost the SCA a fair chunk of money for essentially the same thing... barring a merchant from events. I don't know what the AHA is or what happens to such a professional academic. I don't much care.

I will give one final comparison, from another organization that expresses and espouses chivalric values - the Freemasons. Even in their dwindled state, the Masonic Order dwarfs the SCA in membership, assets and social influence. Conversely, by your measurement, they are also far more exposed to vulnerability if they throw a member out. And yet, they have often done just that - withdrawn membership - for things that have occurred outside of lodge. The courts uphold that right.

I don't know anything about the Free Masons. When they throw out a member, that impacts their mundane income? None of the Free Masons I know earn their living OFF OF the Free Masons organization. To properly draw the analogy, can you please point to such an instance where no legal action was taken when an individual was thrown out without a legally upheld violation?

But the real strawman is that no one is telling Ansteorra they must strip Brian Price's belt, ask the BoD to invoke an R & D or anything of that sort. What they have said is that now that its chivalry, Crown and Great Officers are aware of what has happened and been happening for years, they have an ethical obligation to a) seriously look into it, b) for the Great Officers to look what Corpora dictates in this issue - which simply involves informing the mundane authorities, most likely the Texas Attorney General's office for Consumer Fraud or comparable, c) determine if there are any desired, appropriate or possible sanctions for the kingdom itself to take.

A) Being Done
B) Are you serious? You think the SCA should report him to the AG's office for Consumer Fraud. Why not the AGGRIEVED PARTIES? Have YOU contacted the Texas AG's office? Or any of the plethora of aggrieved parties you mentioned above? If not, why not? If yes, what do you think that the SCA passing along hearsay would do?
C) Part of A

That is the dirty side of being in a position of authority *and* responsibility in a social organization. Being a knight and Great Officer of the home kingdom and waiving this off by saying "let him have his day in mundane court before we get involved" might be easiest, but make no mistake - it speaks to chivalric lassitude, not honorable behavior.

Lassitude. Hm. Defender of the weak.... I don't see anyone on that list UNABLE to defend themselves. I see a bunch of people who, until recently, haven't done much to do so. I really don't mean to offend when I say this... but again I reiterate... These allegations span years and years. They've fallen on ears in "Ansteorra" but within the last couple weeks. It's pretty galling to hear that all of a sudden it's "our" responsibility to "do something" about it when it's clear that very little has been done by any of the aggrieved parties. I'm NOT SAYING that Ansteorra should do NOTHING. That's not my point. I'm saying a ton of people have failed thus far. It's patently unfair to think that "Ansteorra" can all of a sudden perform some kind of miracle.

My guess: because that is not what most people in Ansteorra or any other part of the Society joined for, and for most Knights of the Society, the white belt and gold spurs means something more than that. Good on them - Sir Raymond Lull would be proud.

Cordially,

Gregory Mele

Of course we hold ideals of chivalry to be important. But You HAVE heard of Magna Carta, right? You know that part about how no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land? And yet you ask why I think it'd be a good thing for actual mundane legal action be be in place before taking the kind of actions as a club that seem to be requested?

I appreciate your points and they've given me pause to think. This matter concerns me gravely and bothers me on a number of levels. I don't know Brian particularly well, but I did help him move in when he arrived here in Texas. I've probably seen him less than 30 times all told. But this kind of instance is so dramatic and damaging to our small community. I just prefer that things get done RIGHT.

Best regards,
Morgan

[Astaroth]

[Aaron]

So what are you going to do Aaron?

Balin

Probably not much. I'm not part of any order that is involved in this and IF I was...I doubt I could do much that would be effective.

Yeah, I didn't think about it enough. Once I thought, "IF I was a knight!!!!...................I couldn't do much anyway. There really isn't much to do except (a) toss him out of the Order (which is time consuming and even a murderer had to die before he was tossed out...paperwork, etc...) and (b) shun him."

So yes, I'll apologize to the KSCAs because if I were a KSCA I'm not sure what I could or should do.

[Galleron]

So a civil matter which hasn't been resolved is evidence enough to bar a person from a livelihood? Now mind you, I ask this question hypothetically, not specifically.

In this case, it may be necessary for the SCA to take action before the civil matter is resolved to prevent further injury.

Consider this analogy. Merchant B sells the goods of several craftsmen on consignment. Seven of them come to you and tell you that they no longer have an agreement with B because he's been selling their goods but not paying them anything from the sale. They want you stop him from selling the goods.

B admits that what they say is true, but says that he wants to sell the goods anyway.

The craftsmen say that if you let B sell, their goods will be gone, and B will blow their money on his tropical fish habit and they'll never get it back.

In this case, the least bad choice is to prevent him from selling.

[Greg Mele]

Morgan,

Just a few points.

But to assuage your fears that I'm not taking ANY role, as I stated earlier, I have brought this matter to the attention of the Crown of Ansteorra.

On this point, I owe you an apology. In the 400+ posts I missed this fact, entirely. As you mentioned that few times, let me add: yes, I do think it is normal and fair for the Crown to take time to evaluate everything and no, I never suggested at any time that they need to do anything "right now". Actually, if you look at what I suggested your responsibility is, if you contacted the Crown and asked this be dug into, you're already well on the way.

Which has never been testified to in court.

There is a serious misunderstanding of what hearsay and testimony mean on this thread. Once Brian came on here and admitted culpability, he made this thread admissible. But more importantly, if I directly state that I took ex action, it does not need to be testified to in court to be "evidence".

So in this, the point remains: some of this are allegations that have been corroborated; others are direct testimony. The explanation that Galleron gave above is actually the *legal* definition of what is hearsay and what is not.

So a civil matter which hasn't been resolved is evidence enough to bar a person from a livelihood? Now mind you, I ask this question hypothetically, not specifically.

If someone is using membership in a private organization to defraud people, yes. Remember, you aren't tanking his web business, you are discussing whether he gets to play in your kingdom.

I'd be inclined to give credence to your supposition that my argument is a straw man, except for the fact that I can prove it's not with a specific law suit that cost the SCA a fair chunk of money for essentially the same thing... barring a merchant from events. I don't know what the AHA is or what happens to such a professional academic. I don't much care.

See above - American Historical Association.

I also think you must look at specifics: did that merchant have this level of allegations and had they admitted publicly to failure to fulfill contracts for years?

To be clear, Morgan, I would find it absurd if Ansteorra had an answer for that *right now* - but surely the kingdom has access to legal counsel.

I don't know anything about the Free Masons. When they throw out a member, that impacts their mundane income?

Reputation and business standing is just as actionable regarding "livelihood" as specific monetary income. But the court has always held that defamation charges only apply when the charge is patently untrue. Again, organizations can uphold whatever code of ethics they wish. SCA events are private events held by a private organization; it has legal right to police its own within its confines.

B) Are you serious? You think the SCA should report him to the AG's office for Consumer Fraud.

Completely. Indeed, I would argue Corpora obliges your Seneshal to do so.

Why not the AGGRIEVED PARTIES? Have YOU contacted the Texas AG's office?

Yes.

If yes, what do you think that the SCA passing along hearsay would do?

Morgan, you've been lucky enough to never have to do this sort of thing before, haven't you? I envy you that - and that is not sacrcasm. Three things: firstly, the way these things work is that the more people who come forward, the more attention that the case draws. Secondly, the SCA *will* be drawn into it. This establishes that the organization itself has suspicions of wrong-doing and took steps to notify the authorities. Thirdly, should the SCA decide to take its own actions, it shows that it fulfilled its duty to mundane authority/

BTW, another strawman on this thread: It is NEVER illegal to report suspected malfeasance to authorities, so long as you are not willfully spreading false information. Ie: if you contact the police in good faith, the only way you are ever guilty of filing a false report is if it comes out that you were intentionally lying. In this case, your are simply making a report as a concerned citizen who is an officer in the organization where this has happened.

Lassitude. Hm. Defender of the weak.... I don't see anyone on that list UNABLE to defend themselves. I see a bunch of people who, until recently, haven't done much to do so.

Actually, I said "Defender of the Right and the Good".

It's pretty galling to hear that all of a sudden it's "our" responsibility to "do something" about it when it's clear that very little has been done by any of the aggrieved parties.

Actually:

1. They haven't "done nothing" - you saw what Vitus and Talbot did, and Chris Gillman has told you that he has spent years trying to get these things addressed. As to the authors...watch this space.

2. Just so that we are clear, as I said, it doesn't really matter to me, personally if the SCA sanctions Brian or not - what I want from him, a court will need to provide. My points were only raised for those who were saying that the entire body of KSCA had some sweeping obligation, and the counter argument that there was none. My three points, above is all I think that most people should have, and then one of them gets dropped if you live outside of Ansteorra.

I appreciate your points and they've given me pause to think. This matter concerns me gravely and bothers me on a number of levels. I don't know Brian particularly well, but I did help him move in when he arrived here in Texas. I've probably seen him less than 30 times all told. But this kind of instance is so dramatic and damaging to our small community. I just prefer that things get done RIGHT.

Best regards,
Morgan

Also, to be clear, I think it stinks that this has been dropped on your lap and Brian is not a more active member of the kingdom. If he were, it would probably be easier for you all to have a feel for the man and the situation. I am sensitive to that.

But I do think that because this is so dramatic and so sweeping - and yes, will go into the courts in some cases - that is why the kingdom has to do *something*. Not for me, actually - but for the SCA community.

Best,

Greg

[Maeryk]

Hello, Maeryk,

Lady Charlotte, that's a big FAT can of worms right there...

What do you mean?

Lady Charlotte

Sorry, meant to respond earlier, and things got busy here.

There is precedent, yes.. Paul Serio and Ben Schragger being the two most notable, but there are others historically.

There are a LOT of things that are Illegal.

EX A) You find out that someone let their kids have a party where underage drinking occurred, with their knowledge, just did the "Collect the keys, nobody leaves, be responsible" thing. That's a violation of law. Kick them out?

Ex B) You find out someone got a DUI. Boot them?

It becomes a sliding scale.

Historically, if it hits a court and they invoke their SCA persona, and/or anything happened involving the SCA in the crime, they are R&D'd faster than you can say boo.

In other cases, they are R&D'd where there's smoke.. but I have never heard anyone R&D'd (though I could be wrong) for a merchant or business dispute in OR outside the SCA.

[Stump]

Is this the post where he admitted culpability?

This is a hard thread to read, but, given the difficulties over the last several years, and the hyper aggressive complaints made by two people, I should make a statement here.

First, I will certainly admit up front, with continued sadness, that we *are* behind on royalties for the Chivalry Bookshelf, and are backed up to 2006 in some cases, 2007 in others. However, all royalties will be paid, just as previous debts were paid.

Second, I will also say outright that I am not surprised that Mr. Tobler and Mr. Mele--who I also thought of as friends until 2006--are leading this charge, particularly since they have a competing firm and are closely associated with Ms. Allen, who has a firm that competes with Revival.us. There are other complaints here and there in the thread which I will attempt to deal with; however, there are also a number of either falsehoods or severe differences of perception which may not be able to be resolved here. I am currently traveling and cannot enter into a debate, which also seems ill-advised if these gentlemen are considering legal action of their own. For the last five years at Pennsic neither of these gentlemen has made any effort to walk four booths down to discuss anything, but have been very free to complain loudly and often to anyone who would listen; there has been hardly any restraint in their vocality, which hardly constitutes reticence to leap into the fray.

REGARDING CHIVALRY BOOKSHELF

1) On the whole, I have *lost* money on the bookshelf, not "lined my pockets" with it. The project stated with a $50k investment by my wife, Ann, and over the years we fed it another $110k, rather than taking money out. I also gave up a very lucrative technology post in order to give it a shot. This state of affairs is what really drove the development of the second business, Revival.us. From the start, it was clear that the Revival business was rapidly overtaking CB, and in order to feed my family, the Revival business was the one that we continued to develop.

2) We paid royalties until late 2006, when the cash-flow for CB came sharply down. The biggest factor in the dramatic reduction in available funds came with my huge investment in Christian Tobler's In Service of the Duke. While beautiful and a masterpiece my Christian, this single project ran over-budget and came in at just short of $50k. To date, we have sold just $21k in sales for it. I had assumed, wrongly, that the book's costs would be recouped in a year, but that assessment was wrong. Unfortunately, a $30k hit in a struggling business is more than significant, it is catastrophic.

3) At the same time, also in 2006, the French magazine which we distributed, Medieval History Magazine, abruptly and without warning went out of business, leaving us holding about $20k in subscription commitments for a magazine which was now unavailable. At this was a French company who went bankrupt (they had a very fine line of magazines), we had no recourse. We did, however, either refund or give 100% purchase gift certificates. Technically this debt belonged to Harnois, as all of the funds had been sent to them, but we did not want to leave all of these customers holding the bag, so we made up the difference. It was expensive, but it needed to be done and was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, it came right as In Service of the Duke was going through production.

4) We lost our European distributor in 2006, as the founder of the Greenhill Books, Lionel Leventhal, was replaced by his son. With that transition their business reshuffled, and payments sent to us fell to a very small trickle. A subsequent distributor has sold even less and, in both cases, substantial stocks of books were lost.

5) Finally, during 2006, Mr. Mele and other members of the Chicago Swordplay Guild refused to participate in our joint WMAW/Schola Saint George Symposium held here in DFW. There was a great deal of ugliness written and posted about the organization of the event and predictions of a dire failure, which highlighted the very ugliest side of WMA politics. To be completely frank, this assault on the event given the many hours of coordination, production and the thousands of dollars fronted for it really threw me for a mental loop, and I resolved at that time to transition out of the WMA and possibly out of "sword stuff" altogether. This noise extended far beyond the event itself and I have to believe also contributed to slowing sales of books.

6) Mr. Mele's accusation that we failed to pay printers for the CB titles is false. We have paid every printer we have used--we have had one payment that was late, when the cashflow has been a problem in 2004--but this was paid completely.

7) The assertion that European rights have been sold and not paid for is untrue, although Mr. Mele could not know the details. In fact, we have only exchanged two sets of rights--one for Fighting with the German Longsword (Mr. Tobler) and one for Swordsmans' Companion (Mr. Windsor). Unfortunately, Mr. Tobler's work has generated only $250 worth of royalties paid pack to us (50% of those are due to him from that), and we have received $0 from Mr. Windsor's work. In both cases, we were to have received in trade the English rights to books by those publishers. In one case, we have never received the final manuscript; in the second, we have the manuscript but the translation has never been finished. Any sales of those titles accrue a 50% royalty as derivative sales to the authors. However, as neither is likely to see publication at this late date, it seems moot. We all lost on this one.

Dr. Forgeng's superb book on the Messer was delayed for the very same financial reasons as expressed above. It was due to fall into the same production quality as In Service of the Duke, but, being bitten once, as they say, we went back to the library to negotiate rights for what they call as "monograph" edition, but were unable to secure agreement on a figure that was marketable. I can neither afford nor justify another In Service of the Duke type-project when the first one sold so poorly. The museum wanted $10k for the rights to the "monograph" version, but that still makes it a $20k project--which we haven't had in the last five years and could not justify in any event with royalties outstanding.

Mr. Mele claims that Steve Muhlberger had never been paid for his two books, which is false. Like other authors, he has not received anything since 2006, although to be frank, the amounts we are talking about are exceedingly small (but are still a legitimate debt). Similarly, Mr. Hand still holds many hundreds of dollars of Chivalry Bookshelf stock which he has been free to sell, and presumably has done so. His English Swordsmanship is perhaps our lowest selling book of all time for us, and royalties for that are also very small. SPADA and Medieval Sword and Shield sell better, or did, but have also lost their market momentum. There is little on the balance sheet there, either, and we returned to Mr. Hand the second volume of English Swordsmanship, releasing the rights back to him, which made him angry. We simply did not have the funds to proceed.

9) So, to conclude on the Bookshelf, I freely acknowledge the royalty debt which I owe and which I will pay, as I have paid other legitimate debts in the past. However, one has to be in a position to have sufficient cash-flow to pay said debts, and as I will outline below, I have fought for the last four years to re-achieve such a position.

REVIVAL

Revival.us is a separate business largely run by Ann.

1) Talbot, I am saddened that you truly believe that I in some way stole from you. First, at no point did I ever send any of your pieces for production, casting or otherwise. If you can show any of my pieces that are drawn from yours, or which we have ever produced from yours, I will take back the statement above. But I assure you it did not happen. You indeed sell some of our books and stuff when I was cleaning up the mess from the failed Thornbird Arms shop (which some may recall there were four partners; *only* I every paid back any of the large debt that resulted). . As you well know, my erstwhile "partners" fled the business leaving me with a HUGE debt, and it took a full decade to work through. I could have declared bankruptcy and eliminated the debts, but did not. And there were complaints as I did it, but to my knowledge I finally did all the commissions I am aware of, and even three that were taken by other people in TA's name while I was away at Fort Knox. I apologize for the problems this may have caused you in showing my work and once again thank you for the consideration. Regarding sales at the booth, here I failed you. We very poorly placed the products, giving them about 1/3 of the booth but in an apparently ineffective way. We sold very little, and the shoes on that year carried the sales and drew far too much attention away from that side of the booth. The pairs of missing spurs I cannot account for; they were in the boxes when we packed up and left them for Nicole to pick up and return for you. I did not steal them, nor did we sell them and pocket the cash. Regarding your armour bits, yes, I do acknowledge the debt for these. But the ones in TOMAR are *not* yours, as I still have those at home in the shop. But on your book, I am not sure how you can claim anything was "stolen;" I put in many, many hours on tracking down permissions, but the project just didn't develop and we could not finish it. As you know, traditionally permissions are acquired by the author, and while I freely offered to do it for you, I grossly underestimated the amount of work and it never saw completion. Nothing of yours was ever, as you know, used in any of my projects and this was and is a disappointment, it is hard to see how it is in any way theft. Frankly, I did not know the spur and Pennsic sales issue was a big an issue as it appears here; I will find some way to fix this with you.

2) As for the accusation that we "ripped off" Pakistani craftsmen, this is very easy to answer, although I too must proceed with a limited response as we have initiated legal action pending in Pakistan as a result. My main supplier, for many years, repeatedly sent us sub-par and even substituted products. Over a nine year period, this amounted to $14k in goods and we talked back and forth about it many times in the course of our continued business relationship. Finally, in 2009, we made an order for Pennsic and advanced $9k against an invoice of the same amount. I was told that the products had been shipped, an outright lie, and then the vendor disappeared, to be replaced overnight by Westland Crafts, who offered many of our patterns direct and to wholesalers. We never saw a dime of that $9k in product, and we still have a claim for $14k in products which we could not accept upon receipt here in the states. Westland claims ownership over our gambeson and other patterns, which is one of the points in legal dispute, the other being the $9k payment made to them for fictitious goods.

3) The folks at the Revival booth have also made flying accusations to booth patrons that we ripped off Fettered Cock Pewter for the Fiore pins. I have never made any statement about this because I believed it was an honest misunderstading by the FC people, but, in order to be complete, here is what happened. I commissioned sculpting, molds and pewter castings from FC. We set the terms by email, and on the Ellefante pin, the first project, my commission appeared for sale on the FC website even before I'd received the ones I paid for. I found this distressing, as we had intended to use it for the Schola Saint George, so I contacted them and secured the mold rights for the rest of the three. They refused to grant it for the ellefante, however. We paid several thousand dollars for the sculpting and molds, which is WORK FOR HIRE. That means, we can create derivative works (for the three pins, but not for the ellefante). We did then create some in sterling silver and brass, which FC did not offer. Then, at the same Pennsic when we had Talbot's items and the large shoe display, the FC folks made their displeasure known in a very sharp way, claiming that we did not have the rights to change and replicate the design. But as work for hire, we did for the three pieces. We did not, however, have them for the Ellefante, pin, so I agreed to trade a "release of the molds" to them for our ability to sell all four pins. And, we removed them from the display immediately and never sold them at Pennsic again, except for one, which was sold my mistake by a person in the booth when specifically asked for it. She did not know the story or that we had decided not to sell them at Pennsic. Given that we "released the molds" to them and that they have subsequently sold many of them using the molds I paid for, this is not a debt but was an honest disagreement over what rights are conveyed in "work for hire." I am certain there is no ill-character on the part of the FC people, but I do not agree with their interpretation. They have been compensated for the disagreement already.

4) Regarding our early shoes, only the low boot has any relationship to Talbot's patterning. I acquired two from another craftsman and asked my vendor if he could make something similar, which he did. This was the forerunner of Westland Crafts. Yes, Talbot did the pioneering work on them, but the pieces we used as a sample were not made by Talbot, and the craftsman who did them had made it clear that he had left the business for good. This is the *only* reason we used these as a rough pattern. At the time, footwear was very, very hard to find and my initial thought was just to have a few to help the footwear problem. Yes, the play succeeded, but this doesn't constitute theft. If it does, then why do people not have a problem with Westland or with folks who copied my gauntlet patterns? This is an old debate within the re-enactment community.

5) What is *not* revealed my Mr. Tobler or Mr. Mele in their posts on Revival is that, also during 2006, Mr. Tobler was suddenly, in his words to me written in an email, "working for Nicole" [of Revival Clothing] as she abruptly and without warning left our association (literally overnight), so he has a business interest in his version of events, as does Mr. Mele, at the time Nicole's significant other and still, I believe, an associate. That this abrupt departure had been in the works for some time was clear from the fully finished (and very closely resembling) Revival Clothing site, which Mr. Tobler had created for Nicole, and from the shoes which appeared on the site a few weeks later, indicating that the project had been in place long before the post 2006- complaints happened. This was a coordinated start-up, done while we were all still friends and before the problems with the CB were cited. If not, no effort at "phone calls and emails" cited by Mr. Tobler were made to address the grievances. I have to conclude that during 2006 at least, and perhaps before, Mr. Tobler, Mr. Mele, and Ms. Allen were already working together as a group to set up and run their own business. More power to them, but it was hardly done above-board. And the attacks on me since have a financial and business component.

GAUNTLETS-

Vitus: As you well know, I offered to replace those gauntlets with a stainless pair, and explained to you at the time that I would get to them as soon as possible. They are still first on the list. Of course, we are no longer using that heat-treater--the very same guy who did the gauntlets *I* wear--and I object to your assertion that in some way I tried to defraud you or your squire. As I expressed to you in the FB message, I deeply regret the failure and have already offered a fix. However, as you also well know, I am finishing my dissertation and shop time has been limited.

In going with this heat-treater, I first had him do a pair that I wear still for testing, and they passed with flying colors. On the first production batch, however, they seemed fine until we got them into the field, at which point several broke. I took them off the shelf immediately and have an entire shop full of failed heat-treated gauntlets. We have 1) found a much better heat-treater 2) initiated a testing program for each batch and 3) replaced or offered to replace failed gauntlets and have made every effort to recall the three pairs still outstanding.


MY RESPONSE-

As may be clear from the above, the structural problems with the CB business were evident in 2005 but were starkly clear in 2006. We had already moved our house from CA to TX in 2004 in order to reduce expenses, and there was no further we could cut once we found ourselves beset by business opponents and my error in doing In Service of the Duke.

At that time I'd been out of technology management for five years, and it proved impossible to go back. We did not find ourselves with financial options aplently, so we fed the Revival business and tried to eke out enough to pay the bills, but made little progress, even with new products. Every step forward seem to yield exactly one step backwards. It put an extreme stress on the family, and with the 2006 ugliness with WMAW and the falling business, it was clear we needed a new plan. So I started graduate school to retrain in a new field--history--so that we could leave the sordid world of WMA politics a for the perhaps equally complex world of academic politics. I like teaching, and I think I'm reasonably good at it. A teaching fellow, however, makes $17,500 per year, which is where I've been the past two years (2009-10).

But a doctorate takes a long time and some time/effort. The Bookshelf went onto the back-burner, further reducing revenue possibilities (although I'd already concluded that it wasn't going anywhere and was in a rapid decline anyway). The plan was--and is--to add enough income that we can pay off the outstanding royalties, which we will be able to do in March and April, happily. We thought we had this licked last year, but things fell through. This year looks solid.

Our only income stream was until recently Revival, and it has survived, but not with any significant growth. It chews almost all of the capital brought in, leaving us with very little flexibility, chiefly because of servicing the business debt built up by the Bookshelf. Add to that the copying of our designs by others and the continued aggressive competition from the Revival Clothing and from Mr. Mele and Mr. Tobler's press, things have remained interesting while we've gone about changing our direction.

If authors want the rights to their books, as we have already returned to David Lindholm, then they should contact me directly for a negotiation. Our phone numbers have not changed in 10 years. Email is *not* a reliable channel for critical messaging, and the brian@chivalrybookshelf.com email has not worked since 2008.

My communications during this time have been poor, I will freely admit. The attacks on WMAW (led by Mr. Mele) and the surprise exodus of friendship surrounding Nicole's business came as a sad surprise to me. I didn't respond well, and, things that I overlooked as a friend to Mr. Mele, Ms. Allen and Mr. Tobler in retrospect just make me feel stupid and sad. Unfortunately, by not answering their long campaign, it left the field to them and allowed them to drive the direction of the debate. Very foolish, on my part. They are not entirely wrong, but nor are they entirely right and they are selective in what they choose to report.

In short, I will remain on plan to finish the royalty payouts in April, and then there will be no further Bookshelf titles except for my own, and there are only three of these planned, if they ever come out. Revival.us will continue as a viable business because it is viable, especially once freed from the CB debt.

With Talbot, Vitus, or any other individual who feels personally wronged, I warmly invite you to contact me directly and we'll work out a solution. For Cuan, if my current employment allows me to attend Pennsic, then certainly, we can meet on or off the field to discuss this and any other issue you'd like to broach. If not, the next year I should be more available and at this point, we must have a fight, regardless of how things resolve (or don't). That offer remains open to all.

I understand that some or even many will not be satisfied, and I regret that in the extreme.

I have always said that chivalry is not a matter of acting with perfection (although I wish I were better at it), but is rather a question of making suitable amends after a wrong has occurred. Some of the things that happened in the business have been my fault, others have not. But I have been solely responsible for the communication which has not happened, and while the stresses accruing from a multitude of events corresponding at once in 2006 was great, that does not free me from responsibility and I will continue to pursue remedies.

I can be reached at chronique_editor@yahoo.com.

[Morgan]

Stump, that is, I believe, the only post of Brian's in this thread.

[Stump]

Very good I just wanted to ensure it was preserved in it's unedited and original form.

Some of you might want to think about a screen capture of that post, if you have not already though to do so.

[Talbot]

1. a Midrealm triple peer - Talbot

I'm merely a Laurel and Knight. No pelican for me. Thanks for the bonus peerage

[Guy Dawkins]

1. a Midrealm triple peer - Talbot

I'm merely a Laurel and Knight. No pelican for me. Thanks for the bonus peerage

Super Cool Dude isn't a peerage?

[Galleron]

Very good I just wanted to ensure it was preserved in it's unedited and original form.

Some of you might want to think about a screen capture of that post, if you have not already though to do so.

Elegantly done. I understand that the "Hi! I'm Brian Price and I've been stiffing the Chivalry Bookshelf authors for years but you should still view me with sympathy because...." post has been screen captured, but redundancy is always good.

It gives me a warm, happy feeling to see it preserved even if Brian wants to send it down the memory hole at some time in the future.

It's some of his most useful work, although perhaps not in the sense he intended.

[Galleron]

So a civil matter which hasn't been resolved is evidence enough to bar a person from a livelihood? Now mind you, I ask this question hypothetically, not specifically.

In this case, it may be necessary for the SCA to take action before the civil matter is resolved to prevent further injury.

Consider this analogy. Merchant B sells the goods of several craftsmen on consignment. Seven of them come to you and tell you that they no longer have an agreement with B because he's been selling their goods but not paying them anything from the sale. They want you stop him from selling the goods.

B admits that what they say is true, but says that he wants to sell the goods anyway.

The craftsmen say that if you let B sell, their goods will be gone, and B will blow their money on his tropical fish habit and they'll never get it back.

In this case, the least bad choice is to prevent him from selling.

I would add that if the Society was reluctant to bar him from selling at events entirely, preventing him from selling, displaying or advertising the disputed books at Society events, with serious penalties for infringement, would be a good first step and considerably better than no action at all.

[Greg Mele]

Dear All,

Part of the discussion on this list has been "If you have been cheated, then why aren't you doing anything about it?" As Morgan said, if the injured won't take action in the real world, how could anyone expect an SCA entity to do so?

The answer is simple: we have taken action. A letter of demand was sent to Brian and Ann Price last week, and they were given seven days to respond. Thus far they have not responded, although Ann Price has contacted Christian Tobler separately. I will explain that response in a separate post.

What follows is the full text of the letter that was sent, unedited accept for removing an address and inserting italics here to mimic those of the original letter. The attachments are not enclosed, other than the specific author grievances. Most of the others are screenshots, etc, that appeared on this thread already.

In posting this letter I hope that it will demonstrate, once and for all, what the author's complaints with the Prices are, and show that we have indeed demanded resolution to our satisfaction.

The letter follows in full:

1 March 2011

To: Brian and Ann Price
d/b/a Chivalry Bookshelf
3305 Mayfair Lane
Highland Village, TX 75077
Tel. 708-434-1251
Fax. 978.418.4774

Cc: George Lewis, Esq. - Merchant-Gould, P.C.
Luca Porzio
Tom Leoni
Christian H. Tobler
Dr. Steven Muhlberger
Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng
Guy Windsor

Re: Offer for Resolution of Chivalry Bookshelf’s Past Breaches of Contract

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Price:

I am writing on behalf of the following Chivalry Bookshelf Authors:

• Myself, Gregory D. Mele
• Christian Henry Tobler
• Luca Porzio
• Tom Leoni
• Dr. Steven Muhlberger
• Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng
• Guy Windsor

The express and sole purpose of this letter is to provide you with an offer to resolve all outstanding issues between the above Authors and Chivalry Bookshelf.

As you are aware, and have acknowledged publicly on http://www.armourarchive.com (see thread http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... sc&start=0, post listing: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: And my turn) that you are in arrears for royalties to each of us – some since 2006, others you have never paid:

First, I will certainly admit up front, with continued sadness, that we *are* behind on royalties for the Chivalry Bookshelf, and are backed up to 2006 in some cases, 2007 in others. However, all royalties will be paid, just as previous debts were paid.

Unfortunately, as you know, this is not a complete picture of the financial lay of the land. For example, I have never received a single royalty payment for my work, nor has Luca Porzio received a payment since 2003, nor did he ever receive his ten author copies. Attached you will find a short statement listing some of the individual author grievances. (See Attachment One – Author Grievances) Please note that, although Mr. Tobler’s second and third works were created without a written contract, they were created under the expectation of the same terms as in his first work; particularly as outlined in the contract for Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship, which granted Chivalry Bookshelf right of first refusal under the same contractual terms. The same process of contracting to prior, written expectations was entered into with Dr. Muhlberger.

Further, be advised that your above quotation directly violates your written contractual obligation, as stated herein:

The Publisher agrees to publish and promote the Work at its own expense and in such a style and manner, under such a title, and at such a price as it, in its sole discretion, shall deem proper, and in consideration of these premises, it agrees to pay the Author (except as otherwise herein provided) royalties computed as follows minus fees paid to Museums or Image holders for permissions:

8.5 percent of the gross sales receipts of the first 5,000 books sold
9.5 percent of the gross sales receipts of the next 10,000 books sold
11 percent of the gross sales receipts of all sold in excess of 15,000

In likewise, you have also failed to even provide an accounting of sales, deductions against royalties and owed balances, further violating the contract, as stated here:

The Publisher agrees to submit statements of sales on the first day of December and the first day of June, and to settle for any amount due the Author in cash or check no later than the 31st day of March or the 30th day of September, and annually thereafter, it being understood and agreed that no other notice of sales in any form is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Agreement.

Your claims in the above thread of financial issues are contradicted to your own claims at the start of 2007 that the previous year had been “our best year ever”, as found in Attachment Two – Chivalry Bookshelf/Revival Enterprises Screenshot. While you have stated that Chivalry Bookshelf and Revival Enterprises are separate business entities, we refute this for the following reasons:

1. Both businesses are d/b/a of Brian and Ann Price
2. Both businesses share the same shopping cart, shipping facility and marketing tools.
3. You have referred to both businesses as Revival Enterprises/Chivalry Bookshelf in your own marketing copy, signatures and business dealings.
4. As of today – February 22, 2011 – the Revival.us shopping cart lists amongst its “Top Ten Products”, the Swordsman’s Companion by Guy Windsor (#3), Fighting with the German Longsword by Christian Tobler (#5), Arte of Defense by William Wilson (#6) and SPADA: An Anthology of Swordsmanship by Stephen Hand (#7). As can be seen in the other attached examples of “Top Ten” lists provided by the “Way Back Machine”, Chivalry Bookshelf products have played a significant role in your sales for the last four years. (See Attachment Three)

Therefore, it is our assertion that the businesses are co-mingled ventures of Brian and Ann Price, as individuals, and that Chivalry Bookshelf titles are a driving force – by your own records – in the sales of that venture.

In addition, as you must well know, you have also failed to fulfill your contractual obligations to appropriately copyright any of these titles under United States Law, and as required in your contracts, specifically:

The Publisher agrees to copyright the Work in the name of the Author (or the Author’s chosen pen name) and to take all necessary steps to copyright the Work under United States law. The Publisher agrees to see that proper copyright notice is printed in every copy of the Work and to take all necessary steps to ensure copyright protection for all subsidiary interests licensed by the Publisher. The Publisher will also ensure proper registration of ISBN and EAN codes to further support the Work’s adoption through normal sales and distribution channels.

While the Library of Congress has received copies of the titles it has not received copyright applications or filing fees, and thus damaged the Authors ability to assert their rights against any copyright infringement.

Therefore, by failure to meet your contractual obligations, you have breached any contracts that might have existed between yourself and ourselves. For these reasons, we are formally stating here that we hereby withdraw any and all assignation of rights to copy, use, publish, reprint or sell our intellectual property in any venue, as is our right under United States law.

Further, as you yourself have acknowledged, we are due compensation for our work. On the same public forum, you stated that:

“In short, I will remain on plan to finish the royalty payouts in April, and then there will be no further Bookshelf titles except for my own, and there are only three of these planned, if they ever come out. Revival.us will continue as a viable business because it is viable, especially once freed from the CB debt.”

However, as 1) each member on this list as been promised compensation at various times that has never materialized, 2) because you have stated publicly that Chivalry Bookshelf is insolvent, and 3) since multiple editions of some of these titles have been printed, which affects the percentage at which royalties are to be paid (see above) and because we cannot expect a reliable accounting of sales volume, to resolve all issues between you and the Authors we are prepared to accept all of Chivalry Bookshelf’s remaining stock of the Authors’ titles listed below and your agreement to the following terms in lieu of direct, monetary compensation.

Along with remaining stock, we require your agreement to the following:

1. A written acknowledgment on your part that you release all claims and rescind any contractual requirements between the Authors, generally, and specifically as relates to their intellectual property, as regards the following titles:
a. Jousts and Tournaments
b. Deeds of Arms
c. Fighting with the German Longsword
d. Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship
e. In Service of the Duke
f. Arte Gladiatoria: 15th century swordsmanship of Filippo Vadi
g. The Art of Dueling
h. The Art of Medieval Swordsmanship
i. The Swordsman’s Companion
j. The Duelist’s Companion
2. A written acknowledgement on your party that you release all claims and rescind any contractual requirements or interest in your part on any unpublished projects between Chivalry Bookshelf and any of the Authors.
3. Immediate withdrawal of our products from your website, Amazon, E-bay or other online sales vehicles and cease forever all sales of these products.
4. Delivery of all remaining stock of the aforementioned titles to the Authors’ designated agent.

As a clarification, while the Authors will reserve the right to sell the remaining stock in order to recoup some of the moneys owed them, they do not wish, request or lay claim to any creative contributions made by Brian R. Price or Chivalry Bookshelf, and are asking purely for return of rights to their own works and intellectual property previously provided to Chivalry Bookshelf.

Upon agreement to these terms and receipt of product, Chivalry Bookshelf and the Authors will have no further obligations to one another. The Authors will consider any and all debts due to us to be immediately paid in full, and all business between us concluded. Once this is concluded, we will publicly post to certain public forums that these issues have been resolved to our satisfaction.

Please note it is the Authors’ contention that Chivalry Bookshelf is in material breach of its contracts and that the Authors’ rights have reverted to them anyway. However, the issue of compensation remains and the Authors see this as an opportunity to resolve all issues and sever all relationships with Chivalry Bookshelf. If you are unwilling to accept these terms, then we will be forced to follow with appropriate legal action to either gain remuneration or place a lien against your property until such time as assets are available.

This has become a very ugly chapter in all of our lives, and therefore we would encourage you to bring it to swift closure now. These terms are non-negotiable. If we do not receive your written acceptance of these terms in seven (7) days from delivery of this letter the offer is revoked and we will commence further action.

Sincerely,


Gregory D. Mele

Writing on Behalf of:

Gregory D. Mele
Luca Porzio
Christian H. Tobler
Dr. Steven Muhlberger
Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng
Guy Windsor

Attachments:
1. Author List of Grievances
2. Chivalry Bookshelf/Revival Enterprises Screenshot - 2006
3. Chivalry Bookshelf/Revival Enterprises Top Ten Lists
4. Quit-claim Deed of Contract


Attachment One: Author Grievances

Gregory D. Mele
Failure to:
• provide any sales accounting
• pay any author royalties on Arte Gladiatoria
• pay any editorial royalties on any other CB titles other than Art of Dueling.
• Copyright Arte Gladiatori in accordance with contract.

Luca Porzio
Failure to:
• provide any sales accounting since 2003
• pay author royalties on Arte Gladiatoria since 2003
• Copyright Arte Gladiatoria in accordance with contract.

Christian Henry Tobler
Failure to:
• provide timely sales accounting
• pay author royalties since end of 2006
• provide copies of work on demand, as stated in author contract.
• Copyright author’s work, in accordance with contract.
• Notify of assignment of foreign language rights, in accordance with contract

Tom Leoni
Failure to:
• provide sales accounting
• pay author royalties since end of 2006
• provide copies of work on demand, as stated in author contract.
• Copyright author’s work, in accordance with contract.

Dr. Steven Muhlberger
Failure to:
• provide timely sales accounting
• pay author royalties since end of 2006
• provide copies of work on demand, as stated in author contract.
• Provide copies for academic review, as verbally agreed
• Copyright author’s work, in accordance with contract.

Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng
Failure to:
• provide timely sales accounting
• pay author royalties since end of 2006
• provide copies of work on demand, as stated in author contract.
• Copyright author’s work, in accordance with contract.
• Failure to bring two additional works to market, nor to surrender property after terms of contract had expired.

Guy Windsor
Failure to:
• provide timely sales accounting
• pay author royalties since 2007
• Copyright author’s work, in accordance with contract.
• Notify of assignment of foreign language rights, in accordance with contract