Mr. Perdue, what are you talking about?
I am elevating a comment to a post because it many of the problems with blogging about a complicated legal issue.
"Roger" writes:
'Mr. Perdue, what are you talking about?
'Did Mr. Brown not clearly state he'd never read your books, nor even heard of you before writing his bestseller? Did his publisher not make the same statement?
'Why would you say this:
'"Indeed, neither Brown, nor anyone else acting on his behalf, ever denied the charges made by Perdue in his Declaration." ?'
'Your greed has really got the better of you, mate.'
"Roger" is a recent poster and, unfortunately, has not taken the time to read eithert the current filing or the many posts on this blog. The result is an over-simplification and unwarranted jumping to conclusions.
My Reply:
Actually, they have avoided directly stating UNDER OATH those very things. Why not under oath? Hmmm, maybe a perjury charge down the road, perhaps?
In addition, greed has nothing at all to do with it. Please read read the blog better because you'd see that ALL money that may be won will go to charity.
Further, I offered PRIVATELY (and long, long before I even thought of having a lawyer) ... back in 2003 for an "acknowledgement" and nothing more.
Random House and Sony Pictures are the ones who had to drag this into court.
Please read the documents and bring yourself up to speed on the facts before you casually toss accusations of greed around.
"Roger" writes:
'Mr. Perdue, what are you talking about?
'Did Mr. Brown not clearly state he'd never read your books, nor even heard of you before writing his bestseller? Did his publisher not make the same statement?
'Why would you say this:
'"Indeed, neither Brown, nor anyone else acting on his behalf, ever denied the charges made by Perdue in his Declaration." ?'
'Your greed has really got the better of you, mate.'
"Roger" is a recent poster and, unfortunately, has not taken the time to read eithert the current filing or the many posts on this blog. The result is an over-simplification and unwarranted jumping to conclusions.
My Reply:
Actually, they have avoided directly stating UNDER OATH those very things. Why not under oath? Hmmm, maybe a perjury charge down the road, perhaps?
In addition, greed has nothing at all to do with it. Please read read the blog better because you'd see that ALL money that may be won will go to charity.
Further, I offered PRIVATELY (and long, long before I even thought of having a lawyer) ... back in 2003 for an "acknowledgement" and nothing more.
Random House and Sony Pictures are the ones who had to drag this into court.
Please read the documents and bring yourself up to speed on the facts before you casually toss accusations of greed around.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 8:30 AM
2 Comments:
I credit Jack Shafer at Slate with the anonymice tag. It's pertinent as we've seen.
It's still a good description. But I give Roger credit for coming back with an identity.
Post a Comment
<< Home