IGX

So let's say a guy sets up a blog or site saying he is, oh, the world's foremost solo desert explorer. And let's say he says he walked the Namib desert in Namibia. Solo, with two camels. Except that there are no camels in Namibia and he says he started a Oranjamund, which, at the time, was a closed town devoted to diamond mining with military type guards. And managers of the town recall giving no permission (except to a guy named Benedict Allen, who actually did the walk.)

And let's say this guy also says he walked across the Karakorum desert but, upon being questioned, seems hazy on the geography. Says he was Special Ops with the Brits, but appears to have been in the Navy for a couple of years. Is on the Walts page (what the Brits called a pretend soldier, Walter Mitty). They don't say he's a Walt, just that his claims are suspicious.

And he get's money from sponsors based on his desert exploits, self described and with no pics. Will not even provide a scanned page from a passport showing he was in either of these places. Makes $$ as a motivational speaker. Makes money taking tourists on desert trips. Accepts money from sponsors.

Now, is it me? I have done some mild "adventures" and a bit of genuine exploration. Do I have a right to be pissed off about this guy. Or is it just the nature of the internet that anyone can claim anything.

I'm really curious about what people think.

JMO

the guy sounds as though he is engaged in fraud. of course he pisses you off.

expose him. just make sure your libel insurance policy is paid up. (does libel insurance exist?)

You can get insurance to cover your legal expenses in a libel case.

I'm not exposing the guy. A friend is working on it. I'm encouraging him.

I think there are ways to expose him without libel, but yea. I was on another forum where some guy was claiming a lot of military BS and contradicted himself often. Someone eventually contacted some veteran organization that checks into those things, totally bogus, and they left the site.

Truth is the best defense against an accusation of libel.

If any of you do get sued for libel, your homeowners insurance may cover your defense, oddly enought. Not sure why that is, but it's a common insured occurrence.

I'd guess that the chances of an Irongarmer being sued for libel is higher than the general population. So don't disclose on your application unless asked.

There'll always be charlatans. Guys who claim to have seen and done all kinds of amazing shit. More amazing than you. And they'll fleece people.

Doesn't do you any good to be upset about it. You do real things.

Garm

World is full of assholes, move along

Well, here's the deal: I don't know anything much about, oh, investment scams. Other people do. When they prove something is a scam, I'm grateful. Saves me money. When someone shows some charity pays 95% of the money it collects to the collectors, I know to avoid that charity.

In this case I'm in a unique position to unravel this scam. I know about a lot of the places "explored," have been there, and have some experience putting together expeditions. So helping my friend expose the guy is something I can do with some authority. But does anyone care about this shit? That's my question.

Does it make a good story to see some chest pounding "adventurer" exposed as a fraud. Would that make an amusing read for you? Is it just my own little world or would you read such an article?

I would read such an article.

WildGorillaMan wrote:I would read such an article.

2nd'd. But then again I actually like your writing, at least what I can find of it on BitTorrent.

I wouldn`t mind reading that.

seeahill wrote:Truth is the best defense against an accusation of libel.

No. Truth is an absolute defense against alleged defamation. If you can prove that allegedly defamatory statements are true, then you win. That much is certain.

That said, it's a terrible defense, because if you're put in the position of having to prove that the allegedly defamatory statements are true, that means that

a) you're past the nasty letter writing stage. Legal fees paid = $
b) you're past the demurrer stage; i.e., the plaintiff set forth a valid cause of action, and you couldn't get the case kicked out of court. Legal fees paid = $$
c) you actually made it to trial. Legal fees paid = $$$$$ (there's a big step up between b and c because discovery is a long, arduous, and expensive process)
d) plaintiff made out his case in chief, and your summary judgment motion failed, so now you're putting on your affirmative defenses. Legal fees paid = $$$$$$ and climbing

If you're a defendant, you should hope never to have to rely on an affirmative defense, because it means that every other trick in the book has failed, and not only have they failed, but you have the privilege of paying for their failure.

Bud Charniga's gaping asshole wrote:

seeahill wrote:Truth is the best defense against an accusation of libel.

No. Truth is an absolute defense against alleged defamation. If you can prove that allegedly defamatory statements are true, then you win. That much is certain.

That said, it's a terrible defense, because if you're put in the position of having to prove that the allegedly defamatory statements are true, that means that

a) you're past the nasty letter writing stage. Legal fees paid = $
b) you're past the demurrer stage; i.e., the plaintiff set forth a valid cause of action, and you couldn't get the case kicked out of court. Legal fees paid = $$
c) you actually made it to trial. Legal fees paid = $$$$$ (there's a big step up between b and c because discovery is a long, arduous, and expensive process)
d) plaintiff made out his case in chief, and your summary judgment motion failed, so now you're putting on your affirmative defenses. Legal fees paid = $$$$$$ and climbing

If you're a defendant, you should hope never to have to rely on an affirmative defense, because it means that every other trick in the book has failed, and not only have they failed, but you have the privilege of paying for their failure.

Bud, thanks. So that means I have to have that libel insurance if I want to do this, right? Secondly, none of the "explorers" in question are US citizens. Does that make a difference?

In any case, I will not be intimidated by threatened or real legal process if I'm honest and factual.

Reminds me of a story: my first book, Buried Dreams, published in 84, was about John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer convicted of 33 murders. He eventually sued me for defamation and libel. The only time that has ever happened to me in a 40 year career in journalism.

They took prisoners' rights seriously back in the 90s, I guess. The case was adjudicated. The judge threw it out on 6 points. One of them was that a book I published in 84 could hardly have gotten him convicted in 80. Another point was that if I had did him this harm, he brought the case in the wrong court. So I thought, shit, $2000 to an attorney here, now he's going to bring the case in the correct court. But ... ha ... he was executed before that could happen.

Nowadays, when anybody says, "I'll sue you" I squint a little and give them my best Clint Eastwood: "The last guy who tried that is dead."

seeahill wrote:
Bud, thanks. So that means I have to have that libel insurance if I want to do this, right? Secondly, none of the "explorers" in question are US citizens. Does that make a difference?

Insurance: It couldn't hurt. You'd want to make sure that whatever insurance you buy covers not only the cost of a judgment or settlement, but legal fees and expenses.

Citizenship: Yes, it makes a difference. And what a can of worms that could be. Let's say you're an American citizen, the plaintiff is a French citizen, and the allegedly defamatory statement is published on the Internet. The plaintiff can (probably) choose to sue you in (a) your home state, in state court; (b) in federal court, under diversity jurisdiction; (c) in France, under French law; or, potentially, (d) in any jurisdiction in which the allegedly defamatory statement was read, under the law of that jurisdiction.

In any case, I will not be intimidated by threatened or real legal process if I'm honest and factual.

And to be clear, I think that's the right approach to have. I'm showing my USA A-OK First Amendment bias here, but I find it infuriating that my putative colleagues in many parts of the world have made it punitively expensive to speak in public. But I think also it's important to be clear headed about the possible consequences.

mr seeahill,

abandon your policing of limp-dick adventure writers and go to north korea.

of n. korea, nafod has recently written:

"North Korea is the most fascinating place on the planet. The moment you might think that international institutions and cultures have evolved to some point of modernity and away from the medieval and stone age eras, the NORKs bitch-slap you right across the face with a hearty 'Oh yeah? Watch this shit. And then this shit. And here's some more.'"

n. korea is the ultimate land of shadow and mystery. what better place for an adventurous writer to travel? and who is the dean of travel and adventure? why you.

as a bonus, half the population eats dirt and bark, and that's the sort of diet that would jump start your long-stalled weight-loss program.

The important thing is that he is open to drinking his own urine.

This after much hulabaloo about dragging trailers over sand dunes and taking blood samples and drinking their own urine.

http://ripleydavenport.net/roundswim.htm

I think you should start up a fawning, over-the-top, hero-worshipping, oh-my-god-I-want-to-have-his-baby Ripley Davenport FanBoy blog with twitter account. Constantly tweet about him. Defend him in on-line forums. Challenge doubters to public debates and fisticuffs at brewpubs. When someone googles his name, your site is the first hit.

Your goal is to have Mr. Ripley be thinking...

WildGorillaMan wrote:I would read such an article.

I wouldn't.

The closest thing I can think of are the BJJ nutjobs who go after fake black belts. There are HUGE threads devoted to guys who have fake credentials. In the end, the guys still operate locally and make money and nobody cares except the other guys online who are deeply interested in the validity of someone's black belt (in other words, 8 or 9 guys). Everyone has great suggetions about what should be done..."call the FBI!"..."his mom is in on it, get her address!"...and it's all just stupid. Conmen gonna con.

I'll read it if you sell it to Outside.

It's the only magazine subscription I have.

You don't need to worry about a lawsuit provided you run your phrasing past a lawyer first. Nate Silver did this when he exposed a polling firm for fraud a few years ago. He used phrases like "seems suspicious" "Not necessarily proof of fraud" etc. and then lined up all the damning evidence. The firm squawked, promised lawsuits, but couldn't actually do anything. Here's an example:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/str ... ing-fraud/

Going into the desert with a self-described expert who won't substantiate his claims is legitimately dangerous.

He claims he was in the British Special Services and uses that falsehood, among others, to make money. He should be called out - by YOU? Not necessarily - unless you are also British Special Services. If you are, what color is the boathouse at Hereford?

Don Shipley spends countless hours every week exposing phony Navy SEALS.