PLEASE READ THESE FACTS FIRST:

  • 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

Why No Dan Brown Affidavit?

I had a hard time getting to sleep last night thanks to the excitement of the scores of opportunities that Random House has provided us in their April 22, 2005 filing.

It is as significant for the many significant things it left unchallenged as it is for its mistakes and misrepresentations. The biggest challenge has been which of those to address first.

And just as we have found more and more similarities every time we go back and look at Code and my works, so do the opportunities in that filing multiple.

But after sleeping on things, I find this morning that I am at a total loss at this big issue:

Why would they simply throw in the towel on scores and scores of their claims and drop the issue of "extensive" research, just so they wouldn't have to file an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting that (a) he wrote the book and (b) he did the research claimed?

It was a slam-dunk easy way to tell us to "shove it" ... but they did not.

Why?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home