• 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.
  • 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

Random House Says Trial and Experts are "Burdensome"

There they go again!

In the last line of page 1 and the first line of page 2 Random House's last line of page 1 of their April 22, 2005 filing, claims that a trial to settle these matters would be "burdensome."

Excuse me?!

Don't we have courts just for that reason? Don't we pay taxes to support a system for adjudicating these sorts of disputes?

Random House also states that the Court should deny me this opportunity to avoid the burden of "lay and 'expert' discovery and trial."

Now, I am REALLY confused. On just the previous page (middle of page 1) Random House argues for a "lay observer" and then less than 250 words later they think that is a burden?

Do they really mean they want to make sure that all the emails I got from "lay observers" don't get a fair hearing?

And what is burdensome about an expert -- somebody who actually KNOWS what they are talking about rather than the from-the-hip, trust-us-we-know-what's-best hearsay that comprises the Random House arguments?

Why don't they want any REAL evidence?


Post a Comment

<< Home