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 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.

Friday, December 23, 2005

Random House & Sony: Artful Dodgers

So, if Dan Brown REALLY didn't plagiarise me; if he REALLY did the research he claims; then what's the BIG DEAL about going under oath to deny that directly?

And why have they tortured the legal process and failed to rebut so many of my key points?

The issue is important because THEY sued ME and need to prove their allegations. By failing to submit a response UNDER OATH they have left most of my key assertions UNCHALLENGED. In other words, without a response under oath, THEY ADMIT that I am correct.

From page 44 of my Dec.21, 2005 appeals brief:

"Plaintiffs did not submit an affidavit of Dan Brown. While Plaintiffs’ attorneys tried to act as Brown’s surrogate by arguing what Brown did and did not do when he wrote Code, Brown never swore under oath that he conducted any research when he wrote Code, what books, if any, he read, that he never read Daughter or Legacy, and that he did not copy portions of Daughter or Legacy. Even after Perdue submitted his declaration (A. 206-225) stating that his discussion of the divine feminine was the product of his own personal synthesis, some of which he invented, and some of which he arranged by using matters in the public domain in an original way, Brown did not respond under oath.

"Even after Perdue presented examples in his memorandum of law of the similarities in the expression between Daughter and Code (A. 337-342, 345, 350-356), and even after Perdue accused Brown of having copied that expression, Brown still did not respond under oath. Indeed, neither Brown, nor anyone else acting on his behalf, ever denied the charges made by Perdue in his Declaration. Because of flaws in the way in which Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and because of their failure to adequately deny Perdue’s charges of plagiarism, there existed questions of material fact requiring the denial of summary judgment."

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.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Da Vinci Code Infringement Appeals brief filed

I've just posted the final appeals brief here:

http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/PerdueAppealsBrief/

I encourage you to read the brief and/or the condensed version. In there, you will find:

1. One of the key issues is that, despite page after page of arguments, the Random House/Sony lawyers did NOT address or refute many of my key arguments

2. In addition, many of the similarities the court excluded because it said they were history or facts, were actually my creative distortions of the fact and not history at all.

"The District Court erred in holding that virtually the entire quasi-religious and quasi-historical sequence of the novels was unprotected, even though much of Perdue’s “history” was not history at all but was created by him as a literary device and despite the fact that it was Perdue who originally expressed these historical distortions in entirely and new original ways (later copied by Brown) in order to create a more interesting work of fiction."

"The mere fact that an author chooses to characterize something in the context of his writing as historical fact does not make it so for the purpose of making an analysis of similarities between works. The putative “historical facts” may, as in the instant case, be fictional and there would therefore be no reason to characterize such “facts” as unprotected elements. "

"Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to show that Perdue’s historical inventions were instead actual historical facts, yet the District Court accepted Plaintiffs’ arguments as to what was and was not history."

"one author cannot choose to inhabit a fictional universe created by another author."

"the findings of the District Court were based, not upon the evidence submitted by the parties, but rather on the personal perception of the District Court "


3. Despite the District Court pretending to be an average lay reader, it inappropriately made conclusions and decisions only an expert could competently make while inappropriately excluding all my expert testimony.

4. And even if the court were an expert, its use of such expert knowledge does not adhere to the standard and is improper because it bases a judicial decision on evidence that is not part of the proceedings.


"Unless the District Court had a special historical expertise, it could not begin to decide what was and was not an historical fact. But even if the District Court did have such expertise, it would have been reversible error to rely solely upon such expert knowledge because that would have deprived Perdue of the ability to counter the historical opinions of the District Court with his own historical evidence."

"Without the benefit of any evidence or expert guidance, and under circumstances that would make judicial notice inappropriate, the District Court proceeded to speak as only an expert can speak because many of its statements would have required an encyclopedic knowledge of the appropriate genre, as well as world and religious history."

"While perhaps the District Court was an expert, absent an evidentiary basis, the District Court should not be allowed to use that expertise to decide the motions because the determination would not be based on the evidence. "

"the District Court should not have made its determination without any fact or opinion evidence.

5. Neither Dan Brown or his legal surrogates have denied the charges in my declaration.

"Brown never swore under oath that he conducted any research when he wrote Code, what books, if any, he read, that he never read Daughter or Legacy, and that he did not copy portions of Daughter or Legacy. ..and even after Perdue accused Brown of having copied that expression, Brown still did not respond under oath. Indeed, neither Brown, nor anyone else acting on his behalf, ever denied the charges made by Perdue in his Declaration. "

Monday, December 12, 2005

Retired District Court Judge Opines

I received the following in an email from a retired U.S. District Court judge. With that judge's permission, I am posting the following:

"I have followed this for months now and can no longer hold my peace. In my court, I always demanded that both parties to a civil action make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue outside of court. That did a far better and fairer job of unclogging my jurisdiction than depending upon summary judgement.

"I am astounded that the judge in your case has not done that. It's not an error to form the basis for an appeal, but perhaps it should be."