• 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.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Why Is Ethically Borderline Behavior Necessary?

As the posts previous to this indicate, Random House's filings have contained questionable statements which seem to put in my mouth, words I never said, attributed actions I never took or stated that I did not take actions I provably did.

Those statements seem to violate the ethical standards outlined below and raise the issue of why? Why, if they have a strong case, do they engage in this sort of behavior?

Please keep the following in mind as you read the blog.

The New York State Bar Association's Code of Responsibility has some cogent things to say about this.

On page 9, it says:

"DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.

A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:

4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
7. Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness
as a lawyer."

Page 60 also has some relevant observations:

"EC 7-26 The law and Disciplinary Rules prohibit the use of fraudulent, false, or
perjured testimony or evidence. A lawyer who knowingly participates in introduction
of such testimony or evidence is subject to discipline. A lawyer should,
however, present any admissible evidence the client desires to have presented
unless the lawyer knows, or from facts within the lawyer’s knowledge should
know, that such testimony or evidence is false, fraudulent, or perjured.

"EC 7-27 Because it interferes with the proper administration of justice, a lawyer
should not suppress evidence that the lawyer or the client has a legal obligation
to reveal or produce. In like manner, a lawyer should not advise or cause a person
to hide or to leave the jurisdiction of a tribunal for the purpose of being
unavailable as witness therein"

And then, there is page 63:

"DR 7-102 [§1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.
6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer
knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false."


Blogger Mark said...

That's the same thing as all politicians are crooks. No they aren't but some are. Good luck with the reial and appeal should that be necessary.

Thu Apr 28, 05:04:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...


Thu Apr 28, 05:04:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...


Yeah, that's what I want.

And Random House will lie to prevent.

Thu Apr 28, 06:23:00 PM PDT  
Blogger jorge said...

Random House’s delaying tactics and Mr. Brown's not filing an affidavit serve to highlight their guilt and little else, I think. I agree, trial.

Sat Apr 30, 05:31:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home