How Lawyer Manipulation of the Court Process Can Thwart Justice
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.