The REAL Story in Court Friday - Part 3
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?