Perdue Perplexed: Needs Enlightenment - Part 1
If you've been following the legal filing and resources page you'll notice that Random House filed a response on Friday, 4/22/2005 to the papers I filed on 4/8/2005.
What makes this latest filing so perplexing is the enormous number of factual errors, distortions and puzzling inconsistancies.
I don't quite understand why Random House would do this. Were the statements I made in the previous filings too obscure?
Perhaps you, the reader, can find enlighten us all.
On page two of their document, RH says, "Perdue has understandably abandoned his claim that Da Vinci Code infringes his other novel, The Da Vinci Legacy."
Wow! That is sure a surprise to me!
Gee, if that were the case, then we never would have included an affidavit from John Olsson, Director of the Forensic Linguistics Institute whose preliminary report (beginning on page 7 of that declaration) revealed so many similarities.
Are there any readers out there who might enlighten us on why Random House would make that statement?
What makes this latest filing so perplexing is the enormous number of factual errors, distortions and puzzling inconsistancies.
I don't quite understand why Random House would do this. Were the statements I made in the previous filings too obscure?
Perhaps you, the reader, can find enlighten us all.
On page two of their document, RH says, "Perdue has understandably abandoned his claim that Da Vinci Code infringes his other novel, The Da Vinci Legacy."
Wow! That is sure a surprise to me!
Gee, if that were the case, then we never would have included an affidavit from John Olsson, Director of the Forensic Linguistics Institute whose preliminary report (beginning on page 7 of that declaration) revealed so many similarities.
Are there any readers out there who might enlighten us on why Random House would make that statement?
posted by Lewis Perdue at 8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home