Miscarriage of Justice
One thing that the Vanity Fair article has done is create an air of disbelief that the judge denied a trial.
Mnookin's piece clearly proved that there are many substantial issues that should have gone to trial. Even those who have no clear opinion on whether they think plagiarism is present feel that a trial should have been
Blogger North Coast Exile made a post today that is fairly typical. The lengthy post said, in part:
"Not that I agreed with Perdue, but he raised some valid points that should have been addressed by the courts. To dismiss the case out of hand was a bad decision in my opinion. But then look how the courts tried to handle Microsoft. If computer technology baffles them, do you think the publishing industry is going to be any easier?"
This is especially true when you consider that Random House sued ME and then is trying to extort more than $300,000 from me to pay their legal fees.
In addition, the judge's granting of summary judgement (to deny a trial) violates both the Second Circuit's rules and the federal court rules (Rule 56).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was clear in its decision:
(1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is "no genuine issue of material fact."
(2) The Court should, "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party." I am the "non-moving party."
(3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. "Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues."
I wrote about this and included case citations in this previous post.
Mnookin's piece clearly proved that there are many substantial issues that should have gone to trial. Even those who have no clear opinion on whether they think plagiarism is present feel that a trial should have been
Blogger North Coast Exile made a post today that is fairly typical. The lengthy post said, in part:
"Not that I agreed with Perdue, but he raised some valid points that should have been addressed by the courts. To dismiss the case out of hand was a bad decision in my opinion. But then look how the courts tried to handle Microsoft. If computer technology baffles them, do you think the publishing industry is going to be any easier?"
This is especially true when you consider that Random House sued ME and then is trying to extort more than $300,000 from me to pay their legal fees.
In addition, the judge's granting of summary judgement (to deny a trial) violates both the Second Circuit's rules and the federal court rules (Rule 56).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was clear in its decision:
(1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is "no genuine issue of material fact."
(2) The Court should, "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party." I am the "non-moving party."
(3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. "Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues."
I wrote about this and included case citations in this previous post.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 9:35 AM
17 Comments:
This is what I've learned in the 15 credits of a paralegal program thus far. The other problem is they portray you as the moving patry when that is Random House. I get the idea based on news in the last four years in particular that Twain was right. Even when the truth gets it's boots on no one will hear it. At least some are hearing it thanks to Seth.
Uh-huh ... it is clear that Random House knows something is wrong, is trying to cover that up, and that they cannot win if the truth comes out.
There's no other reason for their lies.
Gee, this is a cover-up worthy of the Vatican covering up the Divine Feminine and launching a spin campaign to demonize her ...
It is indeed. I'm off into a novel about the Freemasons, and found the Catholic Church blamed them for debauchery in New Orleans amomg other things. The trend is all over the place throughout history.
http://jamesrwinter.typepad.com/northcoast_exile/2006/06/what_do_i_reall.html#comment-18587823
Roger's back.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I replied.
http://jamesrwinter.typepad.com/northcoast_exile/2006/06/what_do_i_reall.html#comment-18596592
"Everything I blogged and posted was provably true in a court of law.
"If not, then Random House should have sued me for defamation. You speak of "slander" ... actually, written defamation is "libel," spoken defamation is slader. Yes, what I wrote and published on the web was defamatory, but truth is the perfect defense to any sort of defamation, written or spoken ("perfect defense" being a legal term).
"They did not sue for defamation. Instead they took some sharp legal action to stop me from continuing to publiosh the truth...provably true in a court of law.
"Provably true in a court of law is a good standard ... and one which you might want to try out for your own comments.
"We've definitively proven our case with independent, third-party experts the court refused to consider ... while the court found it necessary to plagiarize Random House's inaccurate description of the books rather than needing to read them all on his own.
"The proper legal action here-- if, as you say they needed to stop me from "slandering" them would be to sue for defamation.
"They did not do that.
"Why?
"Because they know we proved our case.
"However, Roger, I do agree with you on one point: people SHOULD read the legal documents.
"And when the statements are read, everyone must realize the only statements, the ONLY statements that are SWORN under penalty of perjury are my two affidavits and those of the two experts the judge refused to hear.
"NOTHING that Random House submitted was a sworn statement, thus meaning they could (and did) lie, distort and misrepresent things with impunity. That's been well documented."
I also added in an additional post"
"And Roger:
"Thank you for providing the occasion for me to re-state the facts as they have been stated so many previous times. I've already said these things and would not have repeated myself otherwise. You've offered a great sounding board."
Well that's all it took to scare off Jim Winter, a vanity press novelist. Why are these people so timid and afraid of truth? I find this rampant online. Look at the last diatribe he let stand while refusing any replies. I guess if a troll spews lies on a thread all the truth can do is put its boots on and leave. People really are as pathetic as they seem.
Winter of discontent
It's his blog and he gets to do as he wishes. I'd cut Jim a lot more slack ... and thank him as well.
Roger will obviously not allow facts to get in his way. All these issues have been addressed and refuted by facts previously.
Addressing them again is a waste of time given Roger's closed mindset ... thus the closing of comments allows his spew to remain and saves me the time and aggravation of responding.
It also allows Jim to get on with covering the topics he wants to emphasize.
Thu Jun 15, 09:01:05 AM PDT
I suppose so. It saves me the time better spent on my 53rd birthday going to the beach. I make my defenses where I can.
The article looks good in the print version. I just saw it on a stand yesterday.
Thanks Mark. It was certainly fun going to Rome on VF's tab. They do things right, no question.
How are things progressing?
Extension until Aug 16 ... new attorney -- Luther Munford -- an old friend (back to grade school) stepping in to help.
He's strictly an appeals attorney (http://www.phelps.com/pages/profile.asp?id=186)
Good. My dad died this weekend so I've been involved with trying to get an obit in my hometown paper. In three days I can't get a response. They're all paid now through legacy.com. The world really has gone to hell in a crap basket.
Sorry to hear that. My Dad died in 1985 and I haven't quite put that behind me. Probably never will. I still have tantalizing dreams where he's still alive.
I made him a Wiki page and started a WWII novel based on his exploits in the war with Hemingway and possibly J.D. Salinger although I can't verify the latter other than being in the same unit. I have written him about it, and didn't mention his writing. He hates that from what I understand.
RJ York
That's cool! He was a brave man.
Thanks! He was. That's quite a gauntlet to run i order to live to have a family even if it was of one. I'm grateful I know that. I've been on memorial beat for two weeks. Vet memorials and the new Army Museum in Washington. Have to make sure the old man ges credit. Continued good luck with the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home