• 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 29, 2005

Newsweek's Da Vinci Code Chat

Devin Gordon, the author of Newsweek's cover story on the Da Vinci Code, held an online chat today and managed to leave some inaccuracies and false impressions as regards the plagiarism issues.

From the online Transcript:

Aurora, IL: There is still a lot of controversy surrounding whether the author of "The Da Vinci Code," Dan Brown, actually plagerizered another novel that dealt with the same subject material. Do you think that the release of the film will only escallate the controversary, especially if it can be proven that Brown did indeed commit plagerism?

Devin Gordon:
That's true--in fact, the story about possible plagiarism first appeared in Newsweek more than two years ago. However, Dan Brown has been cleared by the court system in every case to date, and he has been up front about the fact that the "conspiracy theories" in his book are nearly as old as Adam and Eve. Given that, I doubt this particular controversy will rear its head as the movie arrives. After all, this is the movie, not the book, and anyway the matter seems more or less resolved. But most importantly, I think there are more pressing controversies than accusations of plagiarism.

When Gordon writes, "Dan Brown has been cleared by the court system in every case to date." He's wrong

The lawsuit in London has not been held yet.

And the "court system" is still in the works in my case. As my appeal illustrates, the District Court judge made some very serious, reversivble errors by not hearing most of my evidence before throwing the case out without a trial.

There was no trial on the facts and that hardly counts as "clearing" him.

The issues of plagiarism are not the "conspiracy theories" but the outright theft of my creative expression, numerous examples of which were ruled inadmissable by the District Court who acceded to the Random House motion to deny a trial on the facts at issue.

Gordon writes, "I doubt this particular controversy will rear its head as the movie arrives."

That's hardly the case given my appeal.

Gordon writes, "After all, this is the movie, not the book," without recognizng that the movie studios are party to the lawsuit.

Gordon writes, "I think there are more pressing controversies than accusations of plagiarism." But many people other than me certainly disagree.


Blogger David N. Scott said...

Do you think you can win? Brown's so teflon, and he's got all the money in the world behind him...

Sat Jan 07, 11:59:00 AM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Well, I have great lawyers and the truth on my side.

That's no guarantee given the state of the American court system where you tend to get the level of justice you can pay for.

However, I keep hoping and praying that eventually we'll see justice done.

Sat Jan 07, 01:08:00 PM PST  

Post a Comment

<< Home