• 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 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?


Post a Comment

<< Home