How Lawyer Manipulation of the Court Process Can Thwart Justice
At The Da Vinci Legacy website, I have just posted my reply, to the Random House Response,to my Appeals Brief.
As I was doing so, I ran across one of my attorneys' explanation as to why we were not able to reply to ALL of the issues in the Random House brief.
"By way of explanation, there is a 7,000 word limit." He explained.
Thus, here is a classic example of how lawyering can bias the process: Random House threw in every possible issue they could -- even when we had already responded to those issues in the trial briefs and even when out responses clearly showed that they had intentionally misrepresented the facts.
But because there is a limit on the size of our reply, we were unable to respond to every issue raised and were not allowed to address any issue to its appropriate extent.
So despite the fact that my affidavits and declarations are the only SWORN testimony in the entire proceeding, the manipulation of the process prevented us from making a full and complete reply. This is yet another way that justice can be thwarted by "good lawyering."
Sure, it's legal, but it's also sleazy and thwarts the even-handed administration of justice. But attorneys for Random House and Sony have been doing that all along, so it's not surprising.
As we have seen, they both realize that they cannot win on the facts. Thus they must do everything possible to prevent a trial.
As I was doing so, I ran across one of my attorneys' explanation as to why we were not able to reply to ALL of the issues in the Random House brief.
"By way of explanation, there is a 7,000 word limit." He explained.
Thus, here is a classic example of how lawyering can bias the process: Random House threw in every possible issue they could -- even when we had already responded to those issues in the trial briefs and even when out responses clearly showed that they had intentionally misrepresented the facts.
But because there is a limit on the size of our reply, we were unable to respond to every issue raised and were not allowed to address any issue to its appropriate extent.
So despite the fact that my affidavits and declarations are the only SWORN testimony in the entire proceeding, the manipulation of the process prevented us from making a full and complete reply. This is yet another way that justice can be thwarted by "good lawyering."
Sure, it's legal, but it's also sleazy and thwarts the even-handed administration of justice. But attorneys for Random House and Sony have been doing that all along, so it's not surprising.
As we have seen, they both realize that they cannot win on the facts. Thus they must do everything possible to prevent a trial.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 9:17 AM
5 Comments:
Why were you subjected to this limit and not them?
There are different limits on each level of filing and this one has a shorted limit than the previous level... thus it is easy to "game" the system.
I ran into this bio of Brown yesterday.
Rogak
Don't know what revalations it contains, if any.
The appeal brief looks good to this law student. The next novel. Yeah that's where I am. The first novel. I can't say that I'm very good at it, at least not yet. Still sending out two nonfiction works to agents and small publishers. Playing the game.
Some deleted posts ...
I had some posts here (quite lengthy) about another infringement case involving writer Dahlia Gal.
I was doing research and planning to elevate it to a post of its own.
But after reviewing the case documents, my attorneys say there is no relevance to my case.
They said they had been tracking the case from the beginning and had already dismissed it as not worth their time.
So, -- likewise -- rather than waste time on something off-topic like that, I've deleted those comments so we can stay on topic here (Lawyer Manipulation of the system).
Post a Comment
<< Home