PLEASE READ THESE FACTS FIRST:

  • 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.


Thursday, December 22, 2005

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.

2 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

I credit Jack Shafer at Slate with the anonymice tag. It's pertinent as we've seen.

Thu Dec 22, 05:48:00 PM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

It's still a good description. But I give Roger credit for coming back with an identity.

Thu Dec 22, 07:06:00 PM PST  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home