“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still.” Revelation 22:11

Seven weeks have passed and Veritas Press has not issued a public response to Rachel Miller’s 70+ examples of plagiarized text in the Omnibus textbook series (Douglas Wilson, general editor). To date, neither Veritas Press nor any of the Omnibus editors have acknowledged the existence of plagiarized content in the textbooks. However, on May 11, 2016, Veritas Press communicated on Facebook that they had retained a third party to review the matter: “We are working on having an expert review the Omnibus in order to determine what needs to be done.” One month later, on June 9, Veritas Press began limited distribution of their expert’s written findings. Veritas Press has not made the report available on their website. They have only leaked it through various controlled outlets.

Gap in the Timeline
On May 11, Veritas Press stated that they had retained a third-party expert. However, the final report states that Veritas Press retained their expert on May 31, which leaves a 20-day gap between the time when Veritas Press began searching for an expert and the time they found one. Any number of explanations could account for this though Occam’s razor cuts to the most obvious: No copyright attorney would rubber stamp a template that exonerated Veritas Press of wrongdoing when they published massive amounts of copyrighted & plagiarized content in the six-volume Omnibus textbook series.

The Report’s Author
The report was written by Jonathan Bailey, who hosts the website Plagiarism Today and who runs a business called CopyByte, which is the copyright consulting firm that Veritas Press retained. Mr. Bailey’s Plagiarism Today “About” page notes his credentials:

Profession(s): Writer, Webmaster, Advertising Specialist, Graphic Designer, IT Guru, GOAT (Geek of all Trades) and whatever else pays the bills

Education: BA in Journalism and Mass Comm, 2002, University of South Carolina – Graduated with honors (shameless brag)

The “About” page on CopyByte adds this:

A writer, journalist and Web developer by training and education, Jonathan has nearly 15 years of experience in building Web sites and has built dozens of different home pages for a variety of purposes.

In 2001, following a personal struggle against a plagiarism of his work, Jonathan began to take up plagiarism fighting and dedicating much of his time detecting and stopping misuse of his content, having stopped over 700 cases of plagiarism of his own work in the past nine years.

In 2005, as a response to these issues and to aid others, he started Plagiarism Today and, due to high demand for his expertise, began to offer consulting services. In 2009, he joined CopyByte as the company’s manager and later took the company independent in 2010.

Mr. Bailey’s “Lawyers and Litigants” page describes him an “expert witness” and you may learn additional information about Mr. Bailey from his YouTube channel, where we grabbed the screenshot below.

Ad Hominem
People who declare they’re an expert witness invite scrutiny to determine their level of expertise. This scrutiny oftentimes takes the form of an ad hominem argument and it’s one of the few times when an ad hom is not fallacious. A three-point argument impeaches Mr. Bailey’s credibility as an expert on plagiarism and copyright law:

1. Education & Experience
   
   

   Jonathan Bailey

   Nothing in Mr. Bailey’s education or background indicates that he is an expert on plagiarism or copyright law. He is a web developer by trade, and a very good one, but this does not make him an authority on plagiarism or copyright law. Mr. Bailey does not cite one case where he testified as an expert witness in a matter involving plagiarism or copyright law, and he does not cite any instance where his expertise made a difference. Mr. Bailey has no experience in the publishing industry, including the specialized field of academic textbooks. Mr. Bailey does not admit familiarity with The Chicago Manual of Style, which is the standard for publishers, editors, writers, and proofreaders. More importantly, Mr. Bailey gives no evidence to suggest he’s even heard of “the CMS,” as professionals call it. And nothing in Mr. Bailey’s education or background indicates he understands the allegedly high standards of the Classical Christian Education movement.

2. Self-Impeachment
   Mr. Bailey has posted a legal “Disclaimer” on his sidebar at Plagiarism Today that impeaches his credibility as an expert witness. It states:

   “I am not a lawyer. I am just a legally-minded Webmaster/Writer frustrated with the plague of plagiarism online and doing something about it.”

   Likewise, CopyByte has a similar disclaimer on its footer:

   COPYBYTE IS NOT A LAW FIRM
   CopyByte is a consulting firm that works with clients and their attorneys to help provide cost-effective and non-litigious solutions to copyright and plagiarism issues.

   Being a “legally-minded Webmaster/Writer frustrated with the plague of plagiarism” hardly qualifies Mr. Bailey as an expert on plagiarism, and a consultant who specializes in “non-litigious solutions” is not the intellectual equivalent of an expert in copyright law. Moreover, Mr. Bailey’s bad grammar and incorrect syntax underscore his limited training. He may be a writer but he is an unpublished amateur.

3. Hitchens’ Razor
   Hitchens’ Razor states “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Jonathan Bailey has furnished no evidence to support his claim that he is an expert witness on plagiarism or copyright law. He has merely asserted it. Therefore, his assertion can be dismissed without evidence.

Jonathan Bailey is not an expert on plagiarism or copyright law.

Bad Faith
In the report Mr. Bailey indicates that Veritas Press limited the scope of his responsibilities to the following three points:

1. As an outside and independent consultant, examine each of the 69 alleged incidents of plagiarism in the work to determine the veracity of the claims.
2. Make recommendations for how to correct any issues that were discovered.
3. If needed, help draft an errata sheet to be included in existing copies and to be used as a guide for changes in future editions.

Don’t miss the imperative at the top of the page from whence they stole: “Please read the copyright notice!”

However, contra the report, Rachel Miller discovered hundreds of incidents of plagiarized material, not 69. She only published 70+ images because she does not have the incentive or the resources to examine each volume cover to cover. Rachel has shared some of her findings with me and I have seen firsthand that the Omnibus suffers from countless eruptions of pilfered content. Consider, for example, the image on the right (click to enlarge), which did not make Rachel’s final cut and therefore was not subject to Mr. Bailey’s inspection. Veritas Press has no idea how much more filched content like this remains undetected and their refusal to take Rachel’s findings seriously betrays bad faith. Veritas Press has an affirmative responsibility to run the entire project through state-of-the-art plagiarism-detection software, just as Canon Press did after Rachel discovered plagiarism in A Justice Primer. I suspect, however, that Veritas Press’ negligence in this matter is not an accident. It appears likely that Marlin Detweiler and the Omnibus editors know exactly how much they pilfered and they would rather pretend none of this happened.

Also, Veritas Press put Mr. Bailey on a tight leash and walked him directly to their conclusion. They allowed him to “make recommendations for how to correct any issues that were discovered,” however they restricted any corrections to “an errata sheet to be included in existing copies.” Veritas Press did not permit Mr. Bailey to recommend the appropriate remedy to their problem — namely, removal of the counterfeits from the market, which was the solution implemented by Canon Press when Rachel Miller discovered far less poached material in A Justice Primer. Canon Press understood it would be unethical for a so-called Christian publisher to continue selling a book chockfull of thieved content. Veritas Press apparently does not understand this basic Christian ethic, though it’s more likely that the cost is too high for them to follow Canon Press’ example.

The Chicago Manual of Style defines the terms of an errata sheet; it does not contemplate any circumstance for publishing plagiarized content (see image on the right, click to enlarge); and plagiarism, by definition, is not an error — it’s uncredited material. An errata sheet will not remove the plagiarized content from the Omnibus and it cannot account for it ex post facto. Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, who served as general editor for the Omnibus textbooks, stated the problem clearly: “A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the obvious after he has been caught.”

Finally, Mr. Bailey’s plain admission that he is not a lawyer did not prevent him from offering legal counsel to Veritas Press. In his statement he wrote, “Furthermore, only a handful of the cases involved a significant amount of text (more than 100 words) and raise any copyright issues at all.” This means that Veritas Press’ paid expert believes his client — Veritas Press — may have violated copyright law, and despite this they feign as though the report clears them.

Given this fact and given the widespread plagiarism throughout the series, I believe that Mr. Bailey would have served his client better by referring them to his post entitled The Perfect Plagiarism Apology . . . Which I am Yet to See. Though the bad actors involved with Omnibus have convinced me that they never intend to apologize. They will bleed this fraud to last red cent.