Lying By Misleading Is Still Lying.
If you check out footnote 2 at the bottom of page four of the recent Random House Brief, the lawyers try to dismiss the analysis by forensic Linguist John Olsson.
Random House states that Olsson, "did not ultimately draw a conclusion of substantial similarity."
That is a deliberate, knowingly false statement. It is UNtrue, and the Random House lawyers KNEW it was a lie when they wrote it. Are there not ethical and legal prohibitions from knowingly making false statements in a legal document?
Olsson most certainly DID reach that conclusion.
Indeed, Olsson expressed his expert opinion that this was "the worst case of in your face plagiarism" he had ever seen.
Perhaps that is why Random House engaged in yet another dishonesty and tried to make it seem as if I was the source of the "blatant plagiarism" post. (see previous quote).
Again, please ask yourself why -- if their case is as good as they assert -- the Random House lawyers have to skulk through the muck of dishonesty.
Random House states that Olsson, "did not ultimately draw a conclusion of substantial similarity."
That is a deliberate, knowingly false statement. It is UNtrue, and the Random House lawyers KNEW it was a lie when they wrote it. Are there not ethical and legal prohibitions from knowingly making false statements in a legal document?
Olsson most certainly DID reach that conclusion.
Indeed, Olsson expressed his expert opinion that this was "the worst case of in your face plagiarism" he had ever seen.
Perhaps that is why Random House engaged in yet another dishonesty and tried to make it seem as if I was the source of the "blatant plagiarism" post. (see previous quote).
Again, please ask yourself why -- if their case is as good as they assert -- the Random House lawyers have to skulk through the muck of dishonesty.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 6:30 PM
11 Comments:
It is very clear that RH and their hired guns are doing their best to 'make you go away."
Anything/anyway they can 'muck' up the facts, ergo: cast doubt and aspersions, threaten you with financial ruin, and make your life miserable is what they are getting paid for.
IMHO, the more they attack, and the louder they yell; the more convinced I am that they are a frightened bunch at the core couched in legal bluster.
Yes, the shrillness, especially of the last set of filings and their willingness to make up things to suit their case is certainly suspicious.
I'm not going away. Dan Brown needs to be on the stand and under oath.
They remind me of Publishamerica.
Lew,
Really wish you'd monitor some comments better. Just read Mark's remark and I will have to re-do my make up........;)
Seriously, I will bet all I have that Danny Brown has been in his counselor's office and already been grilled over the 'smoking gun' issue....They know it is valid.
I am sure they are scrambling, (just in case you don't back down) looking for alternative 'excuses' to exonerate their client's dependency on his researcher's errors.
Bottom line: if push comes to shove....DB will pass the buck to 'lesser' minions.
Publish America, LOL oh, geez....
If he does wind up there he'll just say he wrote it, which he did. Did he copy your work is the question?
Yes. And if Random House prevents a trial (as they have done so far), that will be a question that NEVER goes away ...
No one believes for a moment that one judge -- one reader -- has issued an opinion that forever settles the case.
But, do you suppose they'd rather live with the uncertainty of not having a trial rather than the certainty of ... well you get the picture.
I do. I'm back in LA after a cruise through Tahoe and the gold country. It was very hot.
If and when the judge decides.
This is a lawsuit all its own with papers and filings and briefs that serve no other real purpose than buying more BMWs and Lexus's for Random House's lawyers rather than allowing them to go to worthwhile activities like Katrina relief or educational opportunities for poor kids in the Mississippi Delta.
Does anyone really think that Big Bad Billion-Dollar Bertelsmann can't afford to pay for the pleasure of suing me to begin with?
Almost nothing less could expected from the corporate world today.
That's true, but it exposes Random House's TRUE motives in this whole thing:
1 - Cover up the truth by preventing a trial.
2 - Punish me for defending my work.
Cpoyright infringment is tough. I've learned that much from my limited study of law. I could prove my guy had the opportunity to see the work, which is a big hurdle with an unpublished manuscript, but so far not that he took anything that wasn't public.
The verdict is he's published and I'm not. Nor does the industry want me to be based on two years of effort.
Post a Comment
<< Home