• Random House sued ME; not the other way around.
  • Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web.
  • There has been NO trial on the facts, only the Random House effort to prevent a trial.
  • The only sworn statements made under penalty of perjury are affidavits from me and my experts, nothing from RH.
  • The judge refused to consider any expert analysis.
  • Despite suing me first, Random House & Sony UNsuccessfully demanded that I pay the $310,000 in legal fees they spent to sue me.
  • Contrary to the Random House spin, I am not alleging plagiarism of general issues, but of several hundred very specific ones.
  • This is not about money. Anything I win goes to charity.

Legal filings and the expert witness reports are HERE

I have a second blog, Writopia
which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods
and embellishment of his personal achievements.

Monday, April 25, 2005

The Gold Key: If You Can't Win on the Facts, Then DENY It Exists

Shazam! (I'm running out of words to say "wow!")

After months of arguing that the gold key sequence is somehow a scene a faire or some other animal that is it NOT, Random House is now arguing that it doesn't exist!

Hmmm, this last-ditch strategy of denial is pretty interesting!

Did they do this because they FINALLY read Daughter of God for the first time? Or because the sequence and near-identical nature finally reached a critical mass that they could do nothing other than deny it?

This issue was raised in an earlier blog comment by "Vanessa."

I replied to that post in this way: " Vanessa: remember that the key here is "access."

"I was clear that the gold key in both DoG and Code did "not turn a lock."

"The ingot allowed access in the bank because it had the account number and then physically activated the Rube Goldberg-like mechanism in the salt mine.

"Likewise, in Code, the gold key allows access, but does not turn a lock. It does not unlock a safe deposit box, but allows access by activating the Rube Goldberg-like mechanism in the bank.

"Banks do not have any such thing. I think it is clear that the process was an intriguing and attractive one which was simply adapted by Brown."


Blogger Mark said...

And the paintings aren't both on wood they claim. I haven't checked DVC on that, although I remember it was canvas I think.

Mon Apr 25, 08:41:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Actually, the painting in the Louvre that the DV Code uses was ORIGINALLY painted on wood and later transferred to canvas.

The OTHER version of this painting, which is in the National Gallery in London, is STILL on wood.

Mon Apr 25, 09:17:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home