Historical Response #5: Ellen Brown Admits That Franklin's Bogus Quote on Money Is Bogus.

Gary North

I pointed out that Ellen Brown used an obviously bogus quote from Benjamin Franklin on colonial scrip (paper money).

Here is what she writes in response to my accusation:

5. A bogus quote from Franklin on colonial paper money

That quote is not in my 4th edition. I had to restructure the whole chapter to take it out, but I did it, in the interests of accuracy. In fact I had to restructure two whole chapters, a total nightmare; but I did it. I actually think I've spent too much time on details -- I should be writing another book -- but like you, I find it interesting.

On the contrary, she should have spent far more time doing basic research. Had she done so, her book would be a very different book, which the next edition needs to be.

Let me state the obvious: she should have verified the quotation before she wrote the first edition. Also the second edition. Then the third edition.

She should not be writing another book. She should be re-writing her 2010 edition for publication in 2011 . . . or, if takes as long as I think it will, with 51 additional revisions, 2012. Her motivational mantra should be: "One down, 51 to go."

How can people buy her book? I called Barnes and Noble. They did not carry it. I have to order it, pre-paid. They suggested that I buy it online. I bought the book from Amazon. I was sent a 2007 version. I bought another copy. I was sent a 2008 edition.

Fact: People find it almost impossible to buy the latest edition of any self-published book from retail online booksellers. The seller sends whatever edition is on the shelf. Readers have to buy the latest edition from her site.

When the public cannot buy the latest edition of a non-fiction book from a retail online bookstore, a self-published author has a moral responsibility to post a summary of any revisions on his Website. This is the only way to let the readers know that there have been corrections. Otherwise, a self-published author is responsible for every mistake that he/she has revised. Don't tell us retroactively, "The latest edition corrects that." Tell every reader/buyer this on the site. This is what I do with my site. In Capitalism and the Bible, I post the latest editions. Each edition has the day that the latest edition was posted.

When you call on people to commit to a radical idea in preparation for a major legal reform, you owe it to all of your followers to let them know if your case originally was flawed. To make them keep buying your latest edition in order to be informed of what the earlier editions got wrong factually is wrong morally. It is like asking men to go into battle with faulty weapons that you sold to them.

To understand what she did, imagine that you are Ellen Brown's client. You have been arrested for counterfeiting. This was seven years ago. You said in your defense that you printed only lawful money. Your future is on the line. If she loses her case, you will go to jail.

It took her three years to prepare her case. The trial began three years ago.

In the first week of the trial, she called a witness to the stand. She said he was a world-famous expert. She questioned him under oath on the stand. This point was so important that she spends hours making her case. He said that your counterfeit money has been good for the economy.

Seven years into the trial, someone tells her that the guy is an impersonator. He isn't the world-famous expert she said he was.

Ellen Brown then asks the judge to give her time to re-state her case. She goes over the material again. She revises her case. She does not mention to the jury that her witness was a fraud. She hopes the jury will not remember that witness.

The prosecuting attorney (new on the case) had read the transcripts of the trial. He had recognized how important the testimony of her fake witness was for her case. He immediately had spotted the witness as a fake, along with several others. So, in his summation of the case before the jury, he says this:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is a reason why the counsel for the defense has revised her case. One of her star witnesses was an impersonator. I have shown that several of them were. She should have verified that all of them were exactly who they said they were. She says that she just never got around to this in her first seven years of work. She then came to you with a revised argument, but she never mentioned in her revision that her star witness was a fake. She revised her version of that portion of her evidence without relying on him, hoping that no one would notice. I noticed."

She then says in her summation:

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Yes, I relied on my witness. Yes, I thought he was the real McCoy. I found out late in the trial that he was a fake. I then revised my case. It was just an oversight on my part that I neglected to mention in my revision that my witness had been a fake. And, I assure you, the prosecution's statement that half a dozen of my other witnesses are also fakes is just plain silly. No, I did not verify their credentials, but you can take my word for this: they are experts.

She comes back to the table where you are sitting. You are in shock. She is radiant. "No problem," she tells you. The jury will be convinced by my explanation. You have nothing to fear."

She then adds: "I really have wasted too much time revising this point. I could have taken on another client. But, rest assured, the jury will declare you innocent."

How much confidence would you have in her at this point?

Let us hope that she updates her site, telling her readers about all of her book's revisions and why they were needed. As of mid-October 2010, her site was missing this crucial feature.