Perdue Perplexed - Part 5 - The Plot Thickens
This would lead one to believe that the Random House attorneys had not actually READ the 25 pages of plot similarities beginning on page 14 of this January 6, 2005 filing.
And least we think this was a simply mistake on Random House's part, they REPEAT the same error on page five of their new filings: "Critically, Perdue does not dispute the fundamental differences in plot, characters, themes, setting and 'total concept and feel' between the books...."
Well, CRITICALLY, every filing of mine DOES dispute this in every way possible.
It's hard to figure out how RH thought it was going to get away with such repeated errors and complete misrepresentations of the truth.
In addition, in their filings, Random House fabricated a plot description carefully spun to support only their case.
While I know this counts as "good lawyering" it also skates close to presenting a false picture.
Rather than do the same shaky thing, we decided, to use a description of DV Code (see p. 14) from a respectable online encyclopedia, a credible third party not associated with me or Random House and which had no interest in slanting the plot description for its own purposes.
And of course, we disputed all the issues they claim we have not, including those related to the characters, as shown by the seven pages of non-coincidental similarities which begin on page 40 of that January 6 filing.
And then, of course, we continued the dispute showing far more detailed analysis beginning on page 20 of my April 8, 2005 filings that provide 20 pages more of specific examples of identical or near identical context, character motivation, speech patterns and even paragraphs of strikingly similar writing.
And even that was followed up by four more pages in an addendum to that last filing.
Where in the world could the Random House attorneys come up with the idea that we were not disputing those things? Do they think that if they repeat a falsehood enough times people will begin to believe it?
And why would they write something like that which cannot be supported by the court record?
And finally, why did they FAIL to respond to most of the specific items? Compare their April 22 filing with just one of mine, the April 8 one. Now go through and count the instances where they came to grips with a specific charge and addressed it specifically rather than simply waving their hands in the air and declaring the charges irrelevant with no documentation to back up their statements.
Now, why would they do THAT?
========= RESOURCES ==========
A complete summary of filings can be found at the legal filing and resources page">