Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Good morning and welcome to Gillian Philip's employment tribunal. Today is 10th June 2022.
This is @wommando reporting and we're due to start at 10am.

Catch up with yesterday here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/gillian-phil…

Abbreviations:

DM - David Mitchell, Counsel for Gillian Philip

SQ - Shah Qureshi  Solicitor for Gillian Philip

GP - Gillian Philip writer, the claimant bringing ET against

HC - HarperCollins publisher &

WP - WorkingPartners  book creators

CS or Mr S - R’s witness Chris Snowdon MD at WorkingPartners Ltd

DH - David Hay the Respondents' joint Counsel for this hearing

ML - Michelle Last Keystone Law - Solicitor for HC - 1st Respondent 

ET - Employment Tribunal
J -  Employment Judge

P - Panel member

Other abbreviations:
C- Claimant (GP)
R - Respondent(s) (HC and/or WP)

Sols - solicitors - Irwin Mitchell for C or  Keystone Law for R

FBP - further and better particulars

WS - witness statement

We begin.
EJ asks if any preliminary matters.
EJ: we will now move to Chris Snowdon (CS) giving evidence and aware you want to affirm.

(CS affirms)

DH takes CS through preliminary details.
FH: housekeeping. May be aware working from various docs. (Checks CS has them)

DH confirms CS is seated alone and has no other docs other than ones gone through.
CS: I have and I'll put them away.
(DH confirms WS of CS is 34 pages and 88 numbered paras. Checks signature and contents true and confirmed yes by CS)

DH asks for some short questions of CS.
DH: u indicate in WS at para 1 that u are director of WP, how long?
CS: 20 years
DH: how long in books business?
CS: 35 years

DH: para 50 of WS, whats said there is following 2011 contract (reads), 2nd sentence, could u explain what approval of HC in reality looks like. What was done to get consent of HC?
CS: I'm meant to be precise but complex question. GP was employed to write as Erin Hunter...

CS: with Warriors...when we asked her to try out was in context of Erin Hunter. We asked a number of writers and GPs sample was very good and we shared with HC who liked sample. When HC acquire from us they look at full submission

DH: turn to para 67 in GP WS. In fact I'll come back to that. Turn to para 70. 1st sentence "brave lands series" (reads). What is ur evidence of that statement?
CS: WP is colleget author. We work with writers to put flesh on bones of our stories.
EJ: go slower please

EJ: were going to have breaks every hour. Got to stage like publisher and author
CS: WP is collegent author, when an author licences rights to publisher they're supplying storyline and finished manuscript. We act in similar way. Difference when we're selling new project, we have

CS: cont storyline and don't view publishers. I.portnat to state we work with large no. Od publishers globally and are our publishers. Customers is misnomer.
DH: use of the word "commissioned" suggests HC saying please write following books. Reality of Situ?

CS: reality is our main Erin Hunter project, Warriors, running since 2003. We took decision to keep that and HC to publish others with Erin Hunter
DH: evidence from GP yesterday, suggestion team at WP that devises stories and team within HC working on book.

DH: when book is being created, to what extent is there a team at HC devising and creating story before passing to writer?
CS: no years at HC creating stories. They respond to story. When I say they, Erica Dussman was Commissioning editior.

CS: Was Erica and 1 colleague considered storyline and responded to it. Question of creatikn is very much what we do with team of, around 8 ppl in UK and equivalent in US. They make things up.

DH: back to 67, GP talksabout editorial demands and subje t to.control of Rs. They'd agree edits without involving her at all. Editing process of HC and WP, what did it look like?
CS: we are contracted party at HC as proprietor.

CS: We are responsible and accountable of delivery of manuscript. Our editorial process is very closed and fair to say in publishing you would expect as an author to have lots of comments on whatever ru write. Not true with Bravelands, we were always happy with GP.

CS: We'd ask changes but it our right as author of the work. Whenever u submit a manuscript to publisher, extremely likely come back with many comments. More likely with US publisher than UK. Authors in Reader sense will be responsive to requests. Sometimes we will push back.

CS: Word editor is important. (Missed)
EJ: I disclose I've had a book published.
CS: I didn't know that
DH: we heard email from GP getting email from you about legal fees. U remember?
CS: yes im afraid i do. I apologise
DH: when?
Cs: can't remember
DH: this year?
CS: yes

DH: earlier or near June where we are
CS: guessing but in between
DH: what happened?
CS: I was sent invoice from Keystone and have finance manager called Gary Phillips and was forwarding to garry but I'm very sorry it was sent to GP by mistake.

CS: Can only imagine with computers it was simply me not checking address.
DH: was pointed out, how?
CS: I think Tim Rickets, no, I think Mochelle Last, our lawyer
DH: solicitors for claimant at the time?
CS: yes
DH: so had been comms between sols?
CS: yes
DH: that's all

DM: did u prepare WS?
CS: I did
DM: do u have legal qualifications?
CS: I don't
DM: legal exp?
CS: no
DM: u use term 'fishing experiment', your words?
CS: where?
DM: 28 of WS
CS: my words

DM: what is it?
CS: someone trying to find info
DM: and what u understand of contract for service? Different from contract OF service?
CS: no idea
DM: ur clear on 59 u offer contract for services
CS: I say 'contract of employment'
I do know the difference yes

DM: u say GP as a worker is absurd, yes?
CS: yes
DM: R1 has brought contractual complaint
CS: yes but complaint has changed
DM: if that was in jurisdiction of this and that GP is an employee, can u dispute?
CS: (pause) she was not an employee of WP

DM: but nonetheless u bring contractual claim. I can show u where u said that.
CS: not sure where the questions are leading
EJ: don't worry about leading, just answer

EJ: we've heard matters about contractual claim, based on 1994 order, that's the context DM asking. Repeat DM
DM: was asking u to confirm ud stated R was bringing contractual claim in these proceedings. U remember?
CS: um

CS: not sure I can answer question other than we have contracts for services and that GP was NOT under contract of employment. Only way I can answer
DM: so not sure u can answer the Q but then u answer the Q. Look at para 85

F.: that's ur evidence in this point?
CS: yes
DM: written y u?
CS: reviewing by lawyer
DM: did u write it?
CS:(pause) not precise words.
DM: written for u when statement was written
CS : technical question
DM: it is not. Was it written for you
CS: yes

DM: u confirmed statement true?
CS: yes
DM: but untrue it's contempt of court?
CS: yes
DM: should we dismiss all contents of statement now?
CS: no
DM: what do u know of free representation unit?
CS: very little
DM: u speak of it in statement?

(No answer. DM repeats)
CS: yes I do.
DM: and u say GP was introduced by free rep unit
CS: yes
EJ: free rep or free speech?
DM: para 54 H, free rep

Dm: u say GP was introduced by Free rep unit, its wrong isn't it?
CS: is it?
DM: I'm asking you.
CS: if I've put in here I assume it's correct
DM: but doc not written by u?
CS: legal advice on doc
DM: wasn't written by you?
CS: not correct. Can I take a break?

DM: u say GP sought advice and have printouts
CS: yes
DM: wrong to suggest advice from free rep unit
CS: don't know how to answer
DM: u simply don't know para 55 E1 is true or if I'm suggesting it's false. U don't know.
CD: I'm saying it's my statement but had legal help

DM: q is u don't know if ur contents in true or false do u?
CS: erm. (Long pause)
DM: ill ask a third time and if u don't answer I'll ask judge to draw inference.
CS: (reads)
DM: didn't ask u to read. Asking a third time if WS is true or false?

CS: know they're true from what's said on website. This relates to emails if I remember correctly. DM: again. To repeat question. Ate u confirming page 23 is YOUR evidence?
CS: by point 1? Yes
DM: can u point to emails u menation?
CS: afraid not. No ref.

DM: it formed no part of case, she gave evidence yesterday, what would u say?
CS: I'd say if that's the case it's misapprehension
DM: on your part?
CS: yes but as said we had legal help
DM: this is a cut and paste WS?

CS: (pause) no. Its WS, fair to say WS started with me and reviewed and then reviewed.
DM: what's difference between claims at para 43?
(Missed)

DM: did u check pre schools website?
CS: ( pause) ask again
DM: ur exhibit starts with printout. Was this doc given to u or did u search?
CS: this was printed off for me
DM: were all docs printed off?
CS: yes by a colleague

DM: did u check my website and see details about me and to include that or was it prepared for u?
CS: spoke with legal advisors
DM: whole doc written for u?
CS: no
DM: didn't even bother to check inaccuracies?
CS: I have read docs and written substantial parts of this WS

DM: we have some, by latest calculations of 6000 pages of doc evidence at this hearing. U have them. Can u in any of those pages corroborate statement GP swore and that's why she was dismissed
CS: this hearing isn't for this. Sir?

Dh: not fair to pluck out doc to answer a broad question.
DM: reason he's being asked as included in statement. Perfectly appropriate.
EJ: (reads GP swore at fans). Appropriate to be asked.
DM: point to any doc that GP swore at fans?
CS: we don't erm..I haven't shared that info..

DM: but u see fit to include in WS
CS: saw fir to include ref to real reason why were in Situ. Real reason is because GP engaged in online argument with our brand. Within exchanges, GP joined her personal twitter account to prof acc. She exposed a deal of exchanges with swearing

DM: ur accusation was false?
CS: no she retweeted unpleasant language and key point is that she chose to express views as Erin Hunyer, NYT best seller
DM: u tell us u r devastated to be drawn into media frenzy. Ur not Respondant?
CS: I'm mentioned
DM: not respondant?

CS: WP is. GP refs me specifically
DM: u complain about stress it's caused u and had prof solicitors throughout. You've taken it personally
CS: I do because I'm Director of WP and care

DM: ur contractual claim, not u understand that term. Ur client is claiming legal costs against GP and submitted in Jan. Now in March, ur sols wrote to GP and threatened her with further claims
CS: yes
DM: on ur instruction
CS: businesses instruction
DM: repeated threat?

CS: yes
DM: and GP should bear weight of cost by R1?
CS: if I had...
DM: just answer the question
CS: yes

(Missed)
DM: an email is received by GP from u with invoice from sols for legal fees
CS: correct but a mistake
DM: GP said it being sent was 'menacing'
CS: that may well...erm...I have apologised as genuinely sorry
DM: but u haven't apologised have u?
CS: no

DM: fees is what she'd been repeatedly threatened with?
CS: yes but an awful mistake on my part
DM: and an remarkable coincidence?
CS: mistake
DM: u did it in retaliation?
CS: good grief no

DM: u did this in relation to claim?
DH: don't answer that CS...see no hint of this in FBP
EJ: does it need to be pleaded detriment?
DH: need to put marker down. Don't want to be used in future proceedings. Gone through process and that is the extent of claim.

EJ: happy to proceed
DM: yes but it's relevant. Question is CS you did this as retaliation?
CS: disagree vehemently
DM: u say at para 26, decision to terminate GP contract was R decision but then it was R2...
CS: need a comfort break
EJ: we'll take ten minutes

[Break]

We return.
DM: the termination letter states GP was demised upon R2 not wanting to proceed with her as a writer?
CS: yes
DM: turn up page 224. Actually 227. There are emails from HC concerning GP. page 226, email from Jennifer, she tells Erin (reads)

DM: same page we see at top further email (reads) as I understand that was draft statement from EP?
CS: yes
DM: then internal discussion, page 225, about who made decision then we see at 224, email at bottom.
CS: shall.i look at 225?
DM: u can but Q is to do with 224

DM: page 224 at bottom, I don't have colour copy but my understanding is this email is where R2 HC has added its addition to WP draft statement to emphasis the decision was made by u and not them?
CS: yes

DM: we have e how this is to be portrayed to World at large. This statement published?
CS: not sent to World at large just to people who emailed R1 and R2. Went to ppl who complained

DM: draft sent by yourselves, do we have a copy?
CS: not sure.
DM: so u wouldn't have any basis to dispute no such doc before trib
CS: (pause) no
DM: u aware an order made by this Trib that all docs for this must be received by June 2020? That order was made by this Trib
CS: yes

DM: u accept you're in breach?
CS: there are several thousand pages so not sure
Dm: look at disputive bundle, turn to back, page 2755, last 5 pages
CS: lever arch file getting in my way

CS: have it
DM: docs that follow 5 pages that's all u disclosed?
CS: simply cannot remember
DM: no comms of any form re draft statement?
CS: can't remember. This doc is clear.
DM: not a question of memory. Nothing there touching on draft statement?
CS: erm..nothing in pages

DM: this was order that was made what u said was 'fishing expedition'?
CS: yes
FM: and u further tell us in WS at para 80, u specifically addressed order here?
CS: sorry trying to find it

CS: erm can I ask for clarification, this is about contracts
DM: I'm reading ur final two sentences. U reg the order I've just referenced. Judge also required u to provide contracts (missed) that's what ur speaking to in para 80
CS: yes

DM: samples already produced. What samples?
CS: don't have a ref in statement.
DM: they're your words. Carry a statement of truth with consequences already said. Do u not know?
CS: sample contracts
DM: who?
CS: don't know
DM: only docs disclosed by ur employer

DM: don't have any disclosure of any other contract?
CS: no probably not
DM: so u haven't co ied with the order again?
CS: I may have misunderstood
DM: I suggest ur in breach, by u I mean R1
CS: we responded how we were asked
DM: another fishing expedition on behalf on GP?

CS: different types of contract. We understood just to mean contracts in context of what we do. All I can say
DM: u have other contracts?
CS: we do
DM: and we haven't seen them
CS: I don't think u have
DM: (sighs) also u said Gp would no longer receive accreditation
CS: correct

FM: 13 books?
CS: yes
DM: she's not been mentioned in books which have been reprinted
CS: correct however she wasableto identify herself as having written them
DM: how many reprinted?
CS: no idea
DM: hazard a guess?
CS: no idea

DM: decision to omit GP continues?
CS: it does.
DM: have u seen the med reports produced by GP?
CS: yes
DM: u speak to them in ur WS and challenge whats said by Mr Taylor..
CS: yes
DM: and one is the inability to deal with admin tasks
CS: yes
DM: have u seen emails that passed..

DM: between me and GP?
CS: can u point to?
DM: yes. Page 300. This is an email from me to Mr Dougans to confirm its stated there that I still haven't seen contractual docs with agents etc
CS: yes

DM: follows nor as she produced chronology asked for. This is consistent with what doc said about her inability to martial admin task?
CS: suggests that yes
DM: yet u suggest in WS that's wring and had already sent key docs relevant to solo and me

CS: in an email that I received from GP agent. He referenced consulting barrister. Afraid I can't (missed)
DM: asking u about ur WS and GP sending docs
(Missed)

DM: again consistent with her not being able to martial specific tasks?
CS: ( long pause) yes
DM: 302 (reads 'client need to give clear intructions'
CS: yes
DM: 304 (reads) then privileged. Whole pattern on comms is consistent with what docs said?
CS: (paise) it is

DM: u suggest in WS GP hasn't done full disclosure of legal comms.
CS: can u point me to it?
DM: it's yours. Para 55.
CS: can u point me to para?
DM: multiple paras within 55, same page

DM: u say she engaged with them frequently at this time. Her evidence yesterday was she affected full disclosure and was unchallenged. Wrong?
CD: only point is we haven't been in receipt of docs. Not at liberty to know which

DM: we heard evidence from GP yesterday unchallenged she didn't appear on radio 5 and article appeared on the mail was ghost written for her? Evidence as to correct?
CS: point to...someone knocked at door and got distracted
DM: the evidence she gave yesterday went unchalleged

DM: do u have reason to suggest incorrect?
CS: wrm. No
DM: so we can discount N and M of ur page 14?
CS: if she chose not to appear on Emma Barnet show then yes
DM: already asked u about H about free rep unit. U holding by that evidence?

CS: (pause) which part?
DM: I'm reading your H on page 13.
CS: well... (Pause) I am not sure.
DM: so well put a question mark by that and shall we also by e 'sought advice from free rep unit'?
CS: possibly

DM: u comment extensively at para 55a, on the med evidence in this case?
CS: yes
DM: are u medically qualified?
CS: no
DM: u have had the med docs since April 2022?
CS: I believe so yes

DM: if I tell u the first preliminary hearing, MissLast me tinned to judge ur client would expect disclosure of med docs. Reason not correct?
CS: don't know
DM: u got docs in April and no App to Trib to attend as witnesses to be subject to questioning.

CS: we have not
DM: nor any qs sent in writing and responses sought?
CS: no
DM: first challenge in this and u have no med quals?
CS: correct

DM: u say hard to believe GP not clinically depressed as "not on meds and not seen specialist"
CS: yes
DM: does temp absence of meds disqualify condition?
CS: use of the words "it is difficult' is a qualifier but doesn't mean impossible

DM: it's not impossible
CS: it's difficult to believe
DM: as a lay person whose never examined GP?
CS: no I haven't
DM: u also say GL has been self medicating with alcohol and this units is an error?

CS: yes
DM: is drinking 3 glasses of wine consistent with 10 units per day?
CS: (pause) (missed)
DM: is it inconsistent she has self medicated
CS: so it's entirely consistent what
DM: that's she's self medicated

CS: can't comment on it
DM: but u DO comment on it in WS and why I'm asking
CS: drinking wine to self medicated yes
DM: entirely consistent which is why stated by doc
CS: it is.
DM: u tell us in respect to family circumstances. This is her sons abuse of drugs?

CS: yes
DM: 8 months after termination of engagement
CS: yes
DM: so.it because sons father has died and contract ended and then a gap that we should discount sons probs with drugs?

CS: the case is about what happened Doune and Jul and why the comment is as it is
DM: so should be discounted?
CS: it was 8 months after.
DM: so should it be discounted?
CS: this is in context of late filing of claim

DM: third time of asking. Should it be discounted?
CS: relative to App yes
DM: opportune moment for break
EJ: 5 mins

We return.
DM: U referred to covid lockdown at E of your page 22. Are u aware the lockdown measures were different to England in summer of 2020?
CS: (pause) not sure erm....actually
DM: u don't know?
CS: I qas in holiday in Scotland in Aug 2020 but not sure

DM: and u then give evidence of what u term substantial matters where u set out the issues I've asked u about concerning purported advice from free rep unit.

DM: U don't refer to GP case that it was only following judgement of EAT in case of Forstater that her stated philoophical belief qualified for protection?

CS: no
DM: u state ur opinion on law throughout
CS: with legal advisors yes
DM: without Forstater
CS: maybe ud like to tell me what Forstater is
DM: u don't know?
CS: correct.

DM: u were asked by your counsel about GP WS. U were asked whether hiring of GP by urselves was subject to approval from R2. Remember?
CS: yes
DM: correct that if HC did not want to be an Erin Hunyer writer u couldn't use that writer?

CS: no don't think true
DM: point to any instance?
CS: we don't necessarily tell HC?
DM: vetted by HC?
CS: read her writing and wanted
DM: so her writing was vetted by HC?
CS: considered by HC
DM: was approved?

CS : yes
DM: and it follows as night follows day you would not have contracted with her
CS: can't remember when someone said no to writer we put forward
DM: u describe HC was ur customer but then said misnomer?

CS: yes
DM: reality is ur paid by HC?
CS: yes an as author of set of books
DM: but u say customer is a misnomer
CS: it's semantics
DM: it's an accurate description
CS: don't believe is

DM: was put to u a team who created story? Correct?
CS: yes
DM: u also stated WP was colleget author
CD: yes
DM: and u say author is R1?

(Missed but about the authors of Erin Hunter)
DM: look at para 58, u here describe GP as being the author?
CS: give me a moment

CS: that's a badly written sentence my apologies (laughs)
DM: so she wasn't the author
CS: no
DM: so we should strike through that
CS: if u will yes

DM: look at 77a. U tell us here that the GP referring herself as a copywriter (reads). We should strike through all here as well
CS: I think we should. No need to strike through author here and GP is an author in own right

DM: uve already agreed ref to author was wrong in WS and follows is wronged here?
CS: not sure it does. This para saying copywriter has specific meaning
(Missed)
CS: by all means strike it if it works for you.

DM: now the contractual docs ref to GP as writer?
CS: they do yes
DM: and GP says she was contracted to produce copy in support of Erin Hunter brand
CS: point to?
DM: she said yesterday and in her WS
DM: u agree Erin Hunter brand?
CS: yes
DM: and copy
CS: yes

DM: and 12 ppl creating Erin brand
CS: no, we have total creative team, not total number
DM: u have creative ppl with working on Erin Hunter and all doing in support of brand

CS: they are creating stories and hatacters for series we create as animal fantasy under name Erin Hunter
DM: para 6 u confirm, what is required by contracts is a story line, 22000 words,not by GP, that's the bible yes?

CS: no the bible is a different thing. Erin Hunter predates bravelands
DM: 22000 words is more than 60000 words GP was required to write. So substantial part done before GP?

CS: storyline is not the writing. The words the writer provides are entirely of own making
DM: guided by 22000?
CS: yes.
DM: decision to do with plot, style and tone remain in control of WP
(Missed)

DM: agreements are standard term for GP?
CS: yes
DM: these agreements reflect payment structure?
CS: a way of paying advances
DM: point I'm making is that terms of agreements are fixed?
CS: largely yes

DM: u say that on occasions the terms might be varied slightly. Only one instance of that happening across 23 books?
CS: yes
DM: that one was increase the agent Julia Churchill secured for GP?
CS: yes

DM: u say in statement u do not vary terms?
CS: yes
CS: it's a boiler player contract and same every time except dates and titles
CS: yes contract we have evolved over the years
DM: GP was sole Erin Hunter writer between 2018 and 19

CS: not sure...no actually I am sure...something isn't mentioned HC isn't only writer...think some Chinese writers
DM: do these Chinese writers
CS: they're not Chinese
DM: do they translate into mandarin
CS: yes

DM: in terms of royalties she was treated differently from an author as only received % of royalties which you received first. Her words she was only given small % of %
CS: don't understand

DM: was put to her that she received royalties suggested self employed. GP response said I was different to independent contractor as I got % of royalties of %. Had she been an author and self employed she'd have got full royalties

CS: yes correct. That's because independent author is supplying everything
DM: author was WP
CS: yes
(Missed but about marketing events)
DM: HC could say you were in breach?
CS: possibly

DM: again GP stated yesterday she felt more than something that was voluntary. First because of commitment to u and how she left her mother, who suffers violent senile dementia...

DM: she said this was something she was doing voluntarily and felt obligated and not looked kindly if she didn't agree.
(Missed)
CS: GP was a wonderful presenter for Erin Hunter and we were grateful for her efforts
DM: promotional work on behalf of yourselves as well
CS: yes

DM: we see answer GP had to give in interview being managed by Rosie Best and corrected as history rather than brand
CS: we are the author
DM: so u control what GP says?
CS: don't think so
DM: she's being told what words to use
CS: she's acting as Erin Hunter

DM: 186, an email exchange between GP and another writer in which they discuss phone call where rules were decided what could and couldn't be said by Erin Hunter writers?
CS: yes

DM: again consistent with what u just said about ensuring WP interest was protected
CS: we are the author and needs to be consistent.

DM: page 2071 and should say 'phone call'
(Disparity of page numbers being sorted)

DM: these are rules, directions ro do with upcoming tour about how GP should present at any event, specifically convo addressing qs about the books
CS: yes fairly normal
EJ: trouble reading date

DM: suggest this degree of control is NOT something that an independent self employed author subjected to
CS: possibly not

DM: and there are further refs but are u aware the answers GP had to give on tour in D had to be scripted in advance by HC to ensure only things it wanted saying were Saif
CS: with large brands, has sold 50million copies globally, number if writers behind and makes perfect sense

DM: u agree GP was permitted to say was checked and approved by HC before said?
CD: can't affirm but wouldn't suprise because Erin Hunter very big author and important to the publishers

DM: 2178. This is a doc produced but GP which she says reflects control over her answering of Qs in US. Deals with the order event takes. Para 3, prepared Qs and answers and we then have prepared Qs and answers?
CS: yes

DM: so do u agree that the answers GP gave, what permitted to say was controlled by R2?
CS: degree pertained to Erin Hunter but opp to have live Qs
DM: u say in WS, para 68

DM: u say here that GP worked on her own with supervision or control
CS: yes
DM: then quote an article and make reference to what is said within that. Para 69. The text u have imported is concerned with creation of book for Fark academy 4?
CS: last para yes

DM: that's wasn't one of ur books?
CS: no but we acquired it 3/4 years ago
DM: for hothouse?
CS: yes
DM: and in ur WS, the agreement concerning this work as u say 'all intent and purps, claimant self employed'
CS: yes
DM: look at 500

DM: it doesn't ref supplying storyline, character, plot?
CS: no because when I referred structure I meant (missed)
DM: so u meant structure not contect
CS: yes. Hothouse worked differently
DM: GP under this contract was involved in retaining plot

CS: yes
DM: she didn't do that for u?
CS: no
DM: page 55. Read to urself email from Julia Churchill to GP

DM: the agent says in respect its not like WP where world creation is done.
CS: don't know what this is in regard to
DM: reacquaint urself page 59, an email from Tim, operations assistant to GP

DM: you'll see a proposal at 59. U have para there to do with a story being set in war time?
CS: yes
DM: go back to page 55, what is said by Julia Churchill (reads 'if u did it we'd get u full royalty')

DM: this is in contrast to erin Hunter contracts and didn't receive full royalty.
CS: correct
DM: as stated it's authored not packaged
CS: yes
DM: proposal for freelance writer operating in SE capacity for whotefox
CD: yes

DM: (reads) she's setting up clear contrast working as freelance writer and working pursuant to what GP had with u where u were author?
CS: no she's setting up as independent author , that'll be how she positions it
DM: wasn't challenged yesterday

CS: no need for word independent here...
DM: I have 10 to 15 mins left. We can break and come back
EJ: we can break now and have curtailed lunch and then hear that and hear submissions. Can we squeeze lunch to 39 mins?
(All agreed)

EJ: u can come back to my disclosure of having a book published. Back at 1.30

(Break. There were audio problems with typing noises and low voices during this section which account for parts missed)

@threadreaderapp pls unroll