• 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.
  • NO expert testimony was allowed despite three international plagiarism experts who were willing to testif that it existed.
  • 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

Misrepresenting the Facts - Part 1

I mentioned in the last post that items 1, 5 and, 7 of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing misrepresented the facts.

Let's look at those.

The filing states that I do not challenge:

"(1) the fundamental difference in the secret repressed by the church, namely the existence of an entirely fictional second female Messiah from a hamlet in Anatolia as opposed to the notion that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and had descendants."

However, that is NOT supported by my filings.

I certainly challenged this notion, starting on page 18 of my Rule 56.1 Counterstatement and on pages 35 and 40 of that brief.

In addition, my Memorandum of Law in Opposition also explains the dispute beginning on page 22

To say that I have not disputed that is demonstrably INCORRECT!

Why in the world would Random House write such false things and present them as fact in a legal filing??


Post a Comment

<< Home