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.
RH London Lawyer No Better At The Truth Than American
According to this article in the Book Standard, the Random House lawyers in London are as adept at misrepresenting reality as those in this country.
This excerpt contains a gross falsehood by RH lawyer John Baldwin:
"According to Baldwin, Brown's own copy of Holy Blood was annotated after Da Vinci was published, ahead of another, unsuccessful action by author Lewis Perdue, who accused Brown of plagiarizing his books The Da Vinci Legacy and The Daughter of God. "American lawyers have crawled over it [emphasis added] and Mr. and Mrs. Brown have annotated it up in 2003, after The Da Vinci Code was published."
No. No that bolded statement is not true. It's false and totally unsupported by the facts.
Justice in this case truly needs a measure of truth and, as here in the U.S., it doesn't look as if RH is going to provide that. As I've said with my own case, if RH has such a great case, why must they resort to falsehoods? And if this is a lie, what else have they said that also cannot be trusted?