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??
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??
posted by Lewis Perdue at 9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home