• 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.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

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.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home