Random House Attorney's Fee Demand -- My Prayers Answered
U.S. District Court Judge Daniels has ruled that I do _not_ have to pay the $310,000+ that Random House spent in legal fees to sue me.
Judge Daniels ruled that, "...Perdue's claim was not objectively unreasonable, and there was no evidence that Perdue pursued his claims with an improper motive and/or in bad faith. " -- page 2, line 8 of Daniel's Order .
The magistrate's report on which Daniels based his decision is far more detailed and spends a fair amount of time to support his opinion that I was _not_ the money-grubbing, gold-digging opportunist that Random House claimed in its legal papers and which Dan Brown publicly alleged on the Today Show.
The magistrate's report is here.
These two documents also do a very thorough job of describing the circumstances of the litigation that Random House started.
My petition for a writ of certiorari still remains for consideration before the Supreme Court.
Judge Daniels ruled that, "...Perdue's claim was not objectively unreasonable, and there was no evidence that Perdue pursued his claims with an improper motive and/or in bad faith. " -- page 2, line 8 of Daniel's Order .
The magistrate's report on which Daniels based his decision is far more detailed and spends a fair amount of time to support his opinion that I was _not_ the money-grubbing, gold-digging opportunist that Random House claimed in its legal papers and which Dan Brown publicly alleged on the Today Show.
The magistrate's report is here.
These two documents also do a very thorough job of describing the circumstances of the litigation that Random House started.
My petition for a writ of certiorari still remains for consideration before the Supreme Court.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 12:17 PM
13 Comments:
Well actually, the insults and innuendo in the Random House legal filings would be libel (written defamation) while Dan's statements on the Today Show would be slander (spoken defamation).
(Actually TV is a little in between since the spoken defamation is recorded.)
Regardless, you can lie as much as you want and defame someone to your heart's content in a legal filing because whatever you say is protected, true or not.
Thus Random House's courtroom defamation of me, even if based on knowing distortions and misrepresentations, is not something one could successfully bring legal action over.
Good deal. Glad you got out from under that yoke. Considering it was Daniels it's suprising, but it's a question of looking close enough this time. Onward.
Mr. Serf: You make some interesting points.
Mark: thank you for your support. I predict that the "kept media" will write nothing of this because they are so totally in Random House's well-stuffed pocketbook.
Their forte is winning a all costs and spectacular failure i.e. fall from grace. Breaking even isn't even on the radar.
Mark: It has now been pointed out to me a number of times that RH and Brown have made unprotected defamatory statements about me.
Good. Hopefully you can call them on it. I was particularly interested in C.E. Petit's commentary at Lee's blog. He represents the sci-fi writers association. None of those authors thinks, or have ever thought you had a case. I found that strange frankly. Most of them are TOR authors and I told you what Teresa Nielsen Hayden of TOR said about you. I've consulted with Petit on my case and he declined. Didn't have the guts is more like it. It's a clique over there.
Those who are most ignorant about a concept are all too frequently the ones who speak up soonest and loudest
http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2006/09/chickens-come-home-to-roost.html
He seems to be on your side here, but with lawyers one can never be sure. There are always caveats galore.
Thanks for the link ... he seems pretty straightforward and factual without taking sides ...
It is nice to see someone basing their writing on the facts as opposed to a Random House publicity handout that the MSM suck down uncritically.
I don't understand Patry's comment that you should have had to pay the fees? Why? It's obvious he doesn't think you have a case, but I've never read his factual argument to my satisfaction. What does he base it on?
As an aside I've burned your novel PK narrative onto CD's and intend to play it in my Jeep driving around spraying the streets for mosquitoes tommorrow. If there was ever a job made to order for books on "tape" this is it. I'm a vector control agent here in LA.
Patry, I think, is one of those who makes a decision without having been bothered by the facts. At least in this case.
Wish I had more demand for PK audio ... I'd finish it, but ... enjoy!
I hear you. You did a good job, but I'm having burning issues with my CD-writer. It won't let me overwrite or add the new files/
Thanks, Art. Yes, I continue to get emails and other comments about the similarities.
But more importantly, I'm very happy you've enjoyed my work. That's what counts!
Post a Comment
<< Home