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.
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.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 3:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home