Misleading Reference Insults The Search for Truth
Still on page 1 of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing, (whew! Didn't I tell you there ware a lot of opportunities here?)
They MIS-use footnote 1 at the bottom of the page to imply that Gary Goshgarian's Declaration supports their false contention that any similarities are isolated.
Far from it. Professor Goshgarian's declaration was included to show that many of the items that Random House was claiming as "typical" of a thriller or a "scene a faire" were NOT, indeed, what RH claimed.
FURTHER, they try to shoe-horn Olsson's comments into the mix to further try and imply that Olsson supports the RH distortions.
Goshgarian's analysis, like that from John Olsson, was a very quick and preliminary one which will be greatly expanded by them and other experts IF this matter is allowed to go to trial as it should.
Why does Random House so fear an open trial that they would mislead the reader of their brief? Are they hoping people won't read farther? The judge in this case will certainly read everything.
Aren't we looking for the truth here?
Or not?
They MIS-use footnote 1 at the bottom of the page to imply that Gary Goshgarian's Declaration supports their false contention that any similarities are isolated.
Far from it. Professor Goshgarian's declaration was included to show that many of the items that Random House was claiming as "typical" of a thriller or a "scene a faire" were NOT, indeed, what RH claimed.
FURTHER, they try to shoe-horn Olsson's comments into the mix to further try and imply that Olsson supports the RH distortions.
Goshgarian's analysis, like that from John Olsson, was a very quick and preliminary one which will be greatly expanded by them and other experts IF this matter is allowed to go to trial as it should.
Why does Random House so fear an open trial that they would mislead the reader of their brief? Are they hoping people won't read farther? The judge in this case will certainly read everything.
Aren't we looking for the truth here?
Or not?
posted by Lewis Perdue at 7:20 AM
3 Comments:
RH is rather flippantly dismissing all of the similar elements of the books as common knowledge and historical facts. So for them it's lumping. The important focus is what is dissimilar. So what we have here is a disagreement on fact. What is a fact in this light?
They made the claim and backed it up with caselaw but this can be rejected and even if successful appealed and remanded for trial.
It happened here:
Repp v. Webber
You are correct.
The issue that RH is trying to IGNORE, or OBSCURE is the judicial precedent that if there are disagreements about substantial facts, then the issue should go to trial.
I have already discussed it with my attorneys and we have decided to appeal if the RH requestb to gag me is approved.
That is a FACT that Random House can take to the bank.
Good deal.
Post a Comment
<< Home