The Guilty Attribute Their Own Bad Intentions To Othes
So, given the distortions and misrepresentations that have become the Random House legal stock-in-trade for this case, it was ethically disappointing -- but not surprising -- that they'd try and twist yet another reality.
In a demand for recovery of legal fees, the judge is allowed to consider a financial disparity between the parties involved.
While privacy concerns made the choice difficult, my wife and I agreed to submit our most recent tax returns to illustrate that I am no financial match for the multi-billion-dollar power of Random House and its global powerhouse owner, German corporation Bertelsmann.
Page 8 of the Random House filing mocks this release of personal financial information and hints that I may have hidden assets.
As the court would see in a detailed statement, the ONLY substantial asset I have is a home I own jointly with my wife: a two-bedroom, 1,290 square-foot ranch house (valued at below the median price for Sonoma County) built in 1967 on a quarter of an acre and a $175,000 mortage and $80,000 second mortgage.
But the Random House mockery of this illustrates their arrogant, bad-faith attempt to distract from the fact that even if I were substantially more wealthy, that hardly puts me in the category with German global corp Bertelsmann with BILLIONS in income and MULTIBILLIONS in assets.
They sued me; I did NOT sue them!
If Bertelsmann can't AFFORD to sue me, then that would certainly raise bondholder eyebrows.
But, if Bertelsmann can't AFFORD to sue me,they should have thought of that before filing the papers and not try to recover after the fact. After all, I never wanted anything more than credit for my work.