Of Emails and Archived Web Pages

Since its start as Alexa in 1996,Archive.org has archived several billion web pages, with the goal of "building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public."

We have noticed that an increasing number of Dan Brown's web pages -- which had been archived on this site -- have gone missing. It is always possible that selected pages could be missing due to technical reasons.

Missing web pages weaken the historical record and make it harder for journalists and others to see what a given page actually said at a specific time in the past.

This destruction of digital documentation also handicaps the ability investigators to gather evidence and makes it difficult to impossible to compare digital documentation delivered to investigators with a disinterested and independent third party in order to confirm that a digital document is accurate as represented.

Courts increasingly are taking action against companies which destroy electronic documents as Morgan Stanley recenty found out. The following excerpt illustrates what can happen.

Morgan Stanley case highlights e-mail perils
Fri May 20, 2005
By Michael Christie

MIAMI (Reuters) - The $1.45 billion judgement against Morgan Stanley for deceiving billionaire Ronald Perelman over a business deal has a lesson all companies should learn -- keeping e-mails is now a must, experts say.

Banks and broker-dealers are obliged to retain e-mail and instant messaging documents for three years under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules. But similar requirements will apply to all public companies from July 2006 under the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform measures.

At the same time, U.S. courts are imposing increasingly harsh punishments on corporations that fail to comply with orders to produce e-mail documents, the experts said.

Where judges once were more likely to accept that incompetence or computer problems might be to blame, they are now apt to rule that noncompliance is an indication a company has something to hide.

"Morgan Stanley is going to be a harbinger," said Bill Lyons, chief executive officer of AXS-One Inc. (AXO.A: Quote, Profile, Research), a provider of records retention software systems.

"I think general counsels around the world are going to look at this as a legal Chernobyl."

Clearly the destruction of potential evidence is serious regardless of whether it is in the form of an email or web page. As I said at the beginning, there could be some innocent technical explanation for the missing pages. But I find it odd that some that were available a month ago are no longer there. Fortunately I made my own archive copies.

A "Lay Reader" Weighs in on "Genuine Issues of Material Fact"

One of the "Blog Squad" of people who are scanning the web on their own time sent me the following link posted in January.

The blogger talks about the similarities in Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God then says, "The similarities include things that make it very unlikely that Dan Brown independently thought of the same things...[D]o I think Dan Brown based his book on these others? Most definitely."

Not _every_ lay reader is of the same opinion, but more than 75 percent do think I was plagiarized. As I mentioned below, the whole thing started when I started getting emails from readers who thought I was ripped off. Some of those are in my court filings.

At the very least, all these lay readers raise "genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial" as mentioned in the post below.

2nd Circuit Appeals Court Decision Supports the Notion That a Trial Is Needed

As hard as Random House is trying to avoid a trial with their request for Summary Judgement, the last thing they want is for someone to bring up the case of Repp v. Weber. Well here it is.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was clear in its decision:

(1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is "no genuine issue of material fact."

(2) The Court should, "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party." I am the "non-moving party."

(3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. "Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues."

In Repp v. Weber, the Second Circuit overturned the U.S. District Court's decision to grant a motion of Summary Judgement. Even Random House could not argue truthfully that there are NO genuine issues of material fact.

Justice demands a trial.

EXCERPT from Repp v. Weber (Click here for full case.)

Under the governing Rule, judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Rule is clear in "provid[ing] that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).

In our review of the district court's decision, it is necessary for us to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Skubel v. Fuoroli , 113 F.3d 330, 334 (2d Cir. 1997). However, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In making the necessary showing, "[c]onclusory allegations will not suffice to create a genuine issue." Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corp. , 902 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court teaches that a "genuine" dispute over a material fact arises only where it can be said that the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find in favor of the non-moving party. Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 248 .

We are mindful that factual materiality is governed by reference to the applicable substantive law. Dister v. Continental Group, Inc. , 859 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir. 1988). In this case, of course, our reference is to the substantive law governing actions for copyright infringement. Because the non-moving parties, here the plaintiffs, bear the burden of proof at trial on their claim that Lloyd Webber's "Phantom Song" copies Repp's "Till You," the defendants may satisfy their burden under Rule 56 by showing "that there is an absence of evidence to support [an essential element] of the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues. In this regard, the court's task is issue identification, not issue resolution. See Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 249 . In performing this task, we must assume the truth of the non-movant's evidence. See id . at 255. It seems to us that the district court failed to make the requisite assumption. We think that the district court undertook to resolve some material issues of fact revealed on the motion for summary judgment rather than to identify those issues and leave them for trial. We think that the defendants failed to demonstrate the absence of evidence supporting the elements of plaintiffs' copyright infringement case. And we think that the evidence presented by plaintiffs would allow a reasonable fact-finder to find in favor of the plaintiffs.

Trial: Doing Justice To The Truth

There are two good reasons for a trial:

1. I mentioned one back on May 10 when I wrote that the complexity of my works and the Da Vinci Code -- the symbolism, hidden meanings, intertwined interpretations and expressions of history and religion -- takes this case several steps beyond something that can easily be decided by the "Lay Observer" test. Even Random House, on page 3 of their April 22, 2005 filing called the books "two complex novels."

This is a really good opportunity for an intellectually sharp judge to move beyond the obvious.

2. Unless we have a trial, we will never put finally to rest a lot of issues like:

• Did Dan Brown and/or someone working with him plagiarize my work?
  
• Why would Dan Brown not testify under oath that he didn't plagiarize me?
  
• What role did Jason Kaufman play?
  
• Who really did the research?
  
• Who really wrote The Da Vinci Code?
  
• Why has Blythe Brown sustained a strange alias, Ahamedd Saaddoodeen, for more than 25 years?
  
• Why does Random House think their case is so shaky that they have to misrepresent the truth?
  
• Why can Random House NOT afford to allow this to go to trial?
  

Without a trial, the sludge and the tarnish and the taint will never be cleared away.

That's why I'm not stopping until I get a trial. That's why Random House can't allow it.

I have everything to gain from a trial where the truth comes out. Random House has everything to lose from the truth.

Brown's Olympics Song Claims Too Hot For Bertelsmann?

Over on Writopia we discussed Dan Brown's claims to a song that other people actually wrote (No Affidavits: Too Many Indiscretions in the Closet?) where Vanessa, the ever-determined apologist for Random House has tried to explain things away like a RH lawyer, by ignoring the full story and context.

That reminded me that Brown's disproven public claim to having written an Olympics song was also on the web site of Bertelsmann, Random House's parent corporation.

That page is no longer there, too hot, perhaps. However, there are archives of old pages all over the world, and this one shows the Olympics claim plain and simple.

If Brown has so provably misappropriated these songwriters work, what does that say about his statements about mine? And why no affidavit?

Rewards Offered For Solving the Saaddoodeen/Kaufman Conundrum

I will name a character in my next book after the first person to decrypt the name Ahamedd Saaddoodeen and determine what it actually means or stands for. See Writopia for more details about this.

In addition, I will also name a character after the first person who correctly provides the answer to the connection between Ahamedd Saaddoodeen and Dan Brown's wife, Blythe Newlon Stafford Brown and why database records show them with the same Social Security number and date of birth.

Finally, I will name the hero or heroine after the first person who correctly provides the definitive role that Jason Kaufman has played in this entire process.

The winner may elect not to use their name but to transfer the reward to a friend or family member.

Fan Mail: "Perdue – You’re a Litigious Bastard!"

As I said over in Writopia, the registration requirement for comments to blogs results in a lot of emails from people who don’t want to register for one reason or another.

The following comes from one of those emails. I figured I might as well post this before this person starts plastering it all over the Web.

“Perdue-you’re a litigious bastard! Why don’t you tell people about your big lawsuit against Pacific Bell and the millions that you coerced our of them because of your little web site? Yeah, you’re a real bastard crying poor little me and being a moneygrubbing asshole for going after Dan Brown who writes better in his sleep than you do on a good day.

“Yeah you asshole! I saw what you did with that archive site over on the other writer’s blog so I looked you up and look what I found: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.patheticbell.com I understand that Pacific Bell paid millions to settle the lawsuit. So tell everybody about that you litigious gold-digging jerk!”

Well, first of all, welcome to my blog. It’s always nice to get letters from fans.

The truth is that I made nothing, not a single penny from the class action litigation that grew out of an online forum I started about atrocious DSL service. PacBell did pay millions and I got the only thing I was looking for, justice.

The details are:

1. Back in 2000, I received feloniously bad DSL service from Pacific Bell, now SBC.

2. After months of not resolving that, I figured there must be a better way to get some sort of justice. Even if I never got the service I was after, I figured there must be a way to hold PacBell to accounts.

3. I also figured that I was not the only person with this problem, so in March 2001, I started an online forum – this is before the blogosphere’s Big Bang.

4. The Pathetic Bell users forum was swamped with both angry customers and many good PacBell employees who were aghast at what was happening. So aghast that they provided some great tips and information.

5. The plaintiff’s bar and its investigators picked up on The Pathetic Bell users forum.

6. I was asked to be a named plaintiff in a class action law suit. I refused.

7. I was offered some pretty substantial consulting fees. I refused those as well.

To accept either of those would have damaged the credibility of the forum and the one thing bthat mattered: justice. I was not going to sacrifice that for money.

8. SBC/PacBell was subsequently the subject of several class-action lawsuits as well as regulatory reviews and investigations by both state and federal authorities. SBC lost or settled all of those. I believe they paid a total in excess of $20 million.

9. I received NOTHING from the lawsuit other than the satisfaction that justice had been done.

* I did NOT start the forum with litigation in mind, but only the idea that shedding light on the subject would make justice easier to find. Millions of people benefited.

* I did NOT initiate the litigation,

* I was NOT a party to the litigation other than as an unnamed member of the class of all consumers with the same DSL “service” from SBC.

* I did NOT accept any money or other compensation from any party associated with the entire process and, indeed, paid for the hosting out of my own pocket and spent countless hours over three years as board administrator.

Was it worth it? Yes. Would I do it again? You bet!

So, here we have yet another case where those defending Dan Brown have chosen to take something and twist it around in order to make me look bad, or to try and convince people that I did something I did not.

I do NOT believe that email was prompted by the Random House lawyers, but it certainly does follow the same pattern, as documented in the posts below.

Bloggers Making an Impact

We're all aware of some of the major stories that were ignored by the old media and picked up by bloggers.

The Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code story seems to be following that pattern. Google, Technorati, Waypath and several other search devices for blogs indicates that Da Vinci Crock has been picked up by several hundred blogs with links to them from more than 2,000 other sites.

Spanish language and Japanese blogs are the largest non-English blogs to pick up the stories, but we have Finnish, German, Austrian, French, Italian, Canadian and other countries.

The foreign media seem to have started to pick up on this and I've done interviews with some of the largest media outlets in Italy, Israel and Spain. They tell me that the sorts of truth-twisting going on in this case would not be tolerated in their courts. They're also tremendously interested in the Dan Brown affidavit issues.

I understand that Random House has a tremendous promotion, media relations and spin machine, but the truth is out there and it won't go back into the bottle. Bloggers don't fit into a mammoth corporation's pockets quite as well as a lot of the old media do.

Finally, there seems to be a universal befuddlement about why Random House is trying so desperately to deny me a public trial on this. If they have the facts, then they should have nothing to worry about.

Why The Double Standard For Lawyers?

I have had any number of emails and phone calls now from attorneys who believe that the statements by the Random House attorneys that I find objectionable would NOT, in fact, be viewed as violations of the New York Bar's Code of Professional Conduct by the panel of lawyers who would decide the issue.

In the opinions of these many attorneys, Random House's distortions, out-of-context quotes, factually flawed and incorrect statements representing that I said things that I did not, or did things I did not, may be "playing fast and loose with the truth" or "intellectually dishonest" but would not be found by other lawyers to be violations of the ethics code.

What kind of twisted system have we produced where a process that is supposed to produce justice can be acceptably filled with falsehood? I am told that is the REALITY of our legal system.

Sure, I understand that, but the _other_ reality is that honest people punish their children for far less substantial falsehoods. Those who don't, provide society with an endless supply of crack dealers and Enron CEOs.

There is probably a book here somewhere.

If you're just beginning to read this blog, take a look at some of the examples. Scroll down to the articles on last Friday's court hearings, or further down to "Cooking the Truth Smells", " Lies, Damned Lies and Random House Footnotes", or " Q. When Is a Bachelor NOT a Bachelor? There are more, but these will offer you a flavor.

It also makes me wonder what they are trying to accomplish. The judge is too smart to let these get in his way. And if their case is as good as they say, then why do they feel this is necessary?

I'll have more to say about this later over at Writopia.

Comments Live Here Again

It appears that the exploit that someone repeatedly used to crash this blog has been closed.

Why Justice Demands That This Case Hear Experts and Credible, Third-Party Evidence

Random House has slavishly stuck to its contention that the judge should not consider ANY expert witness testimony and should not consider ANY evidence beyond the books in question. If the judge does that and grants their request to keep the case from going to trial, it will probably offer us one of a number of grounds for appeal.

While Random House has made a number of misleading and factually incorrect statements to the effect that I am claiming copyright protection for historical facts, the truth is that in a number of significant areas (already blogged on below -- Gnosticism, the Heroine as a symbol of Sophia, etc.), what I have done is to look at the history then ask, "What if?"

That "what if?" has resulted in the creation of a number of unique expressions of Gnostic theology, of what Constantine may have done, of how and why the human vision of God has transitioned from female to male.

The issue is that those unique expressions form literary "fingerprints" that I created, but which showed up in The Da Vinci Code.

This case NEEDS experts in history to show that what Random House is claiming are historical facts are not history at all but a unique expression of "what if?". The same holds for the Gnostic theology and a number of other significant expressions that were plagiarized.

Significantly, the literary fingerprints of those protected expressions may not be apparent to a "lay observer" and may not be detected by someone who is NOT an expert. Nevertheless, those expressions are significant, unique, created by me and MIS-appropriated in Da Vinci Code.

In works where symbolism and other esoteric things are vital to the core of the expression, there need to be experts in the same way as there are in software copyright infringement cases.

In those cases, identical source code -- the expression of the software in a programming language -- could be used in many parts of an application without that plagiarism being visible to lay observers. How? The guts of the software -- the kernel, services, input/output etc. -- could be identical, but a lay observer would never know it if the graphical user interface were different.

While the lay observer test works for the determination of many literary copyright infringement cases, this case involves books with many symbolic and other hidden elements and needs the assistance of experts and credible third-party evidence.

That situation is undoubtedly the reason that Random House fears experts and outside evidence and the reason they have studiously avoided addressing any issues of symbolism -- odd for a book filled with and based on symbolism, right down to its hero's occupation.

The REAL Story in Court Friday - Part 3

The most significant missed story in court on May 6, was the Random House attorney's concession -- for the sake of the arguments in this case -- that Dan Brown had access to my works.

They have consistently argued that access was lacking, that Dan Brown never heard of me or my books.

But Dan Brown is unwilling to make those statements under oath.

Rather than file something that has legal value (as opposed to PR value) Random House would rather concede the issue for the sake of arguing the case in court rather than have Dan Brown testify under oath or submit an affidavit under oath.

I very much want Dan Brown under oath as I have done.

Yet, Random House is unwilling to have Brown join me under oath. If you are under oath and say something false, it is perjury. I have already taken this step. Why is Dan Brown not willing?

Why will Dan Brown NOT testify under oath that:

1. He wrote The Da Vinci Code
2. That he conducted extensive research.
3. That he never heard of me or my books.
4. That The Da Vinci Code did NOT rip off my books?

The Random House lawyers repeated in court what they said in their April 22, 2005 filing: that it "wasn't necessary."

It isn't necessary in this case to have Dan Brown testify under oath?

Having your lawyers say this for you has no legal value (and no legal consequences for lying). Saying these on a talk show may have PR value, but no legal value.

What do the Random House attorneys fear so much about having Dan under oath?

Why has no journalist had the courage or objectivity to ask those questions?

The REAL Story in Court Friday - Part 2

The second biggest argument in the Random House case contends that similarities (maybe 24%) are due to unprotected "stock" elements or scenes a faire.

The evidence we presented show that stock elements vary from genre to genre. In other words, a stock element in a thriller may likely not be a stock element in a historical novel.

The Random House attorneys had no answer and refused to address my attorney's question of why their legal filings have defined my works and Dan Brown's as thrillers up until they re-defined the books as "historical novels" in their April 22,2005 filings.

This is most likely due to the fact that we had expert testimony that proved much of the elements Random House had defined as stock elements for thrillers were NOT stock indeed.

The REAL Story in Court Friday - Part 1

The issue of Dan Brown's missing affidavit came up in court a number of times on Friday.

Judge Daniels, understandably, questioned my attorney Donald David about the significance. The key issue as explained in court worked this way:

Random House's filings have tried to explain away most (perhaps 75%) of the similarities by saying that they were due to shared historical research.

However, despite the no-brainer nature of an affidavit, Dan Brown refuses to file a legally accepted, under-oath document that verifies he conducted the research.

So, despite the continuing assertions by Random House lawyers that the differences are here, they have folded their hand on this issue for lack of legally accepted, under-oath verification from Dan Brown.

Almost All the News Fit To Print

New York Times Reporter Edward Wyatt attended the hearing on Friday, May 6, and wrote a article about it in today's paper (free registration required).

He did a great job of presenting the facts, considering his closeness with Random House. The article contained a couple of factual errors, but missed the real story of the session.

Where do I get my opinion that he's close to Random House?

He sat on the Random House side of the court and was obviously very familiar and friendly with them, engaging in frequent and obviously friendly conversation.

That's totally understandable. After all, he covers the book publishing industry and it's his job to know the players.

However, he did not attempt to introduce himself to us before the hearing started although there was ample time. You might also have expected that he would have wanted to familiarize himself with the other side in a controversy.

After the court hearing was over, he engaged in 10 minutes of chitchat with the Random House execs and attorneys. Everything was packed up and were ready to leave the court. Still, the New York Times reporter made no move to come and talk to my attorney. Finally, because he had to walk past us to get to the exit, he had no choice but to engage us in conversation.

As a former reporter myself, I can understand needing to remain on good relations with people from the largest publishing company in the world. He will have to work with those people on a regular basis for the foreseeable future. I am not a continuing presence in his work life and, thus, of far less lasting importance.

As a former university journalism instructor, I've talked to my classes about how coverage and news judgement is shaped by these sorts of personal relationships and the dangers of getting too close.

The mistakes in the article were minor, but avoidable.

First of all, the story said that I was represented by Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding. That changed a couple of months ago when my litigation team was among those at FBWH selected to merge with Cozen, O'Connor.

As a reporter, I was taught to check details ("Is your name spelled 'Jon' or 'John?' Is it 'Smythe' or 'Smith?') Asking for and getting a business card from my attorney would have avoided that minor error.

As I described above, he was animated and familiar with the Random House folks and did not seem to want to engage us.

The other mistake is understandable but also avoidable. The article states, "Mr. Perdue's two books have sold about 570,000 copies, according to court filings."

The context that is missing (but contained in the court filings) that affects this number is that The Da Vinci Legacy was a bestseller when it was published in 1983. Unfortunately, my publisher, Pinnacle Books, was headed into bankruptcy and sent me only one royalty statement. That was the only one available and covered less than six months worth of sales. In addition, that royalty statement was probably doctored. One of the factors that precipitated the bankruptcy was when several authors, including me, hired an auditor to examine royalty accounts.

The actual sales were considerably higher.

Now, Mr. Wyatt would have known that had he been as familiar with the facts of my work as he is with Random House. But for the reasons I state above, he is not simply because Random House is far more important to him on a continuing basis than I am.

I doubt that I would have been able to do a better job if I had been in Mr. Wyatt's shoes.

But I also think that closeness to Random House has kept him from asking a couple of questions that could lead him to a far bigger story here.

I'll post what that that story is after I get packed for the ride to JFK and back home. Or from the airport.

Court Hearing Today

Oral arguments were heard today in Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, Judge Daniels presiding.

After an hour and a half of sturm und drang from both sides, the judge decided that he'd better read the books himself.

This is a good thing.

Judge Daniels was an even-handed man with probing questions and a poker face that didn't tell anybody what he thought. That's as it should be.

I grew up in a place where the law was usually NOT about justice. I get a feeling that justice means something to this judge.

However, as one might have expected from their written legal filings, the Random House attorneys continued to misrepresent my words, but at least this time we had the opportunity to point out -- real-time -- that the truth had been twisted by them.

As but one example, they repeated their statement (see below) that we had abandoned our claims of infringement in The Da Vinci Legacy. My attorney, Donald David, made sure the judge had the truth.

Random House repeated most of the knowingly false statements detailed in blog posts below along with numerous other mischaracterizations that indicate that the Random House attorneys either don't KNOW what is actually in Daughter of God or that they are deliberately presenting incorrect information to the court.

Examples: In struggling to present DISsimilarities where they DON'T exist, the Random House lawyer

(1) Represented Willi Max, the murdered curator of art in the beginning of Daughter of God as one of the people who "looted" the art. He was not.

(2) They represented the official of the Zurich Bank in Daughter as a former Nazi. He was not.

(3) Ad nauseum -- just as in the posts below, they present one misrepresentation after the other.

Q. What does The New York State Bar Association's Code of Responsibility, page 9, DR 1-102 say about misrepresentation:

A. "A lawyer or law firm shall not:
"4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."

It has come to me through other sources that the Random House lawyers are not happy with my dusting off of NY Bar's the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Well, I am not happy with their misrepresentations.

Read the posts below.

Read what I actually said then read what they wrote.

Read the full quote from The Da Vinci Code about Robert Langdon's alleged committed bachelorhood and then read what they wrote.

After you do this, then draw your own conclusion about the relationship of what Random House did to what the NY Bar's Code of Professional Responsibility says.

I know they're reading the blog. They even have a 'Vanessa' scurrying around to other blogs to spout the party line.

To repeat: I know they're reading the blog. SO -- even if they were clueless about what I actually said in my written legal filings, or what Dan Brown actually wrote they certainly had their provable errors pointed out to them. Here. In writing.

Yet they chose to give false information to Judge Daniels.

This may be acceptable behavior to the Random House attorneys, but decent people punish their children for such things.

There are such things as honesty and decency and values those should fill our courts, not be blocked at the courthouse door.

Et Tu, Angels & Demons? + New Blog

You may have noticed that I suspended the blogging about the Random House filing and have disabled comments. Why?

1. Lack of new posts: After going through the rest of Random House's April 22 filing, there is just more of the same. The posts pretty well confirm the distortions, misrepresentations etc. More of the same gets tedious to read and write.

2. Disabled comments: Some enterprising soul found a way to break the software using the comment lines. It brought the entire blog down numerous times.

New posts (with comments) will now move to: http://writopia.blogspot.com where I'll post on the Dan Brown thing as well as other topics. Comments are enabled. If the same people bring down the blog again, at least the blog posts about Random House's misrepresentation and deceit will still be available on this blog.

The first post there will be from an email that points out what the feels could be more plagiarism -- this time in Angels & Demons.

It looks more likely that A&D could become its own separate legal action.