• 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.
  • NO expert testimony was allowed despite three international plagiarism experts who were willing to testif that it existed.
  • 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.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Why Is Ethically Borderline Behavior Necessary?

As the posts previous to this indicate, Random House's filings have contained questionable statements which seem to put in my mouth, words I never said, attributed actions I never took or stated that I did not take actions I provably did.

Those statements seem to violate the ethical standards outlined below and raise the issue of why? Why, if they have a strong case, do they engage in this sort of behavior?

Please keep the following in mind as you read the blog.

The New York State Bar Association's Code of Responsibility has some cogent things to say about this.

On page 9, it says:

"DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.

A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:

4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
7. Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness
as a lawyer."

Page 60 also has some relevant observations:

"EC 7-26 The law and Disciplinary Rules prohibit the use of fraudulent, false, or
perjured testimony or evidence. A lawyer who knowingly participates in introduction
of such testimony or evidence is subject to discipline. A lawyer should,
however, present any admissible evidence the client desires to have presented
unless the lawyer knows, or from facts within the lawyer’s knowledge should
know, that such testimony or evidence is false, fraudulent, or perjured.

"EC 7-27 Because it interferes with the proper administration of justice, a lawyer
should not suppress evidence that the lawyer or the client has a legal obligation
to reveal or produce. In like manner, a lawyer should not advise or cause a person
to hide or to leave the jurisdiction of a tribunal for the purpose of being
unavailable as witness therein"

And then, there is page 63:

"DR 7-102 [§1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.
6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer
knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false."

Creation, Expression, Interpretation - NOT Regurgitation

As I mentioned in the last post (Cooking the Truth Produces a Stench), my expression of how history and theology come into play in all my works covers a wide span of both, using interpretations and my own "what if" creations to make a given point.

Page 14 of the April 22, 2005 filing from Random House takes dead aim at the truth once again -- and hits the target squarely, once again trying to stuff into my mouth, words I did not say.

In referring to The Gnostic Gospels By Elaine Pagels, Random House nails the truth right between the eyes when they write, "This prominent book, which won the National Book Award, contains several of the religious theories in which Perdue here proclaims a monopoly,..."

First of all, notice that Random House does NOT cite anything in my filings to indicate where I "proclaim a monopoly." That is because the statement is a total fabrication.

And second, while I acknowledge the prominence of The Gnostic Gospels, I claim no right to anything in it.

As I explain in many filings, but most recently in my affidavit of April 8, 2005 (starting on page 7), I do not regurgitate history or theology. I use them as a launch pad for creating something new -- an expression that I DO believe is protected. Indeed, on page 10 of my affidavit of April 8, 2005, I explain some of the ways that my expression on things differs from Pagels'.

Not coincidentally, my expression is what was plagiarized in Da Vinci Code.

Random House's "proclaims a monopoly" fabrication is a transparent attempt to make the reader of this filing think I have claimed something I have not.

Cooking the Truth Smells

Page 14 of the April 22, 2005 filing from Random House contains the grossest possible distortion of my words and meaning.

"Perdue concedes in his Counterclaim, (paragraph 83, pp.34-35), that the underlying history in Daughter 'is largely adapted from modern interpretations of the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity; the most influential of these is probably The Gnostic Gospels By Elaine Pagels'."

But that's NOT what the document says.

If you go to my Counterclaim, (paragraph 83, pp.34-35, you will find that Random House's misrepresentation completely changes the meaning. Their partial quote refers NOT to "the underlying history in Daughter" as Random House falsely states, but to only one set of narrowly drawn conversations.

The accurate quote, as you can see from the actual court filing, is:

"The later ecclesiastical history described in Seth's, Zoe's and Hans Morgen's lengthy soliloquies is largely adapted from modern interpretations of the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity; the most influential of these is probably The Gnostic Gospels By Elaine Pagels."

My expression of how history and theology come into play in all my works covers a wide span of both, using interpretations and my own "what if" creations to make a given point.

As we'll see in the next post, there is not a single page in their April 22, 2005 filing that does not engage in this ethically borderline practice.

It is ALL About The Goddess

Beginning on page 3, the April 22, 2005 filing from Random House frequently repeats the already disproven concept that The Da Vinci Code is not about Sophia, the Great Goddess, the supreme divine feminine.

We addressed this in an earlier post "Dan Brown challenges the Notion That 'Mary Married Jesus' is REALLY What DV Code is about," but Random House seems determined to keep this misconception alive by repeating it time after time.

So, in addition to what Dan Brown says publicly about what DV Code is about, it's probably worth looking at what DV Code itself says:

This, from Chapter 60 of The Da Vinci Code: "The Priory of Sion, to this day, still worships Mary Magdalene as the Goddess, the Holy Grail, the Rose, and the Divine Mother."

There's more. But I fear that if I quote too much of DV Code, Random House will sue me for copyright infringement.

Abstract Is For Art; Concrete Paves My Plagiarism Case

After several pages of incorrectly accusing my filings of being nothing but "abstractions," the April 22, 2005 Random House filing says about me, "He never takes on concrete plot and character comparisons .... "

They repeat this numerous times such as on page 8 where they write, "...abstract concepts cannot substitute for an analysis of the actual work."

I couldn't agree more. I suppose they need their memories refreshed concerning the 33 pages of specific and oh-so-concrete plot and character similarities analyzed starting on page 14 of my Complaint and Counterclaim of January 6, 2005.

I suppose it would also have been also convenient for Random House to forget about the plot similarities as analyzed in John Olsson's declaration and expanded upon in these charts.

Look for yourself and decide whether or not Random House has reflected reality in their statements.

I've pointed out some of their tactics before in this filing where they have seized on something that is NOT true and then repeat it over and over and over like propagandists who believe that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.

Again this begs two important questions:

(1) If their case is so good, why can't they stick with the facts and the truth?
(2) If we can so clearly verify their falsehoods in all these matters, how trustworthy is ANYTHING they say?

We Need to Look at ALL of Random House's Claims in Light of The Abundant Verifiable Mistakes in Their Briefs

Random House's April 22, 2005 filing is 25 pages long. But it is so packed with errors, distortions, half-truths and worse that in the six days since it was filed, I've only been able to address little outside the first ten pages!

To be clear here: this blog and the posts are, for the most part NOT about arguing the various points of infringement.

This blog IS about citing the existing, verifiable legal record as filed with the court to reality-, truth- and fact-check the Random House statements against what they have said in the past, or their representations of what my filings have stated in the past.

This allows me to address (and for readers to verify themselves) the clear and provable errors, misrepresentations, and the remarkable things said (no more thrillers, books are historical novels) and unsaid (no affidavit from Dan Brown that he did the "extensive" research or that he wrote The Da Vinci Code).

The reasonable conclusion which a discerning person might draw is that we should look at all of Random Houses claims -- especially those trying to deny infringement -- with the verifiable knowledge of the many, many errors, misrepresentations and other mistakes we can clearly confirm in this one filing alone.

From the review of the Random House filing, 10 or 15 posts today will get me just about to page 12 or 13, but even that will require me to skip over some of the errors.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Yet Another Reality Disconnect

On Page 11, line 16 of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing, they make a bogus claim about "charts of common historical facts."

That sentence reads, "In the end, Perdue's heavy reliance on charts of common historical facts discussed in the two books only demonstrates his profound misunderstanding of the copyright law."

Well garsh m'am!

I'm just a novelist not a lawyer. I write thrillers ... or historicals depending on your own mood and need to fabricate an argument.

And while I may profoundly misunderstand copyright law, I'd be willing to bet my attorneys whom you've gratuitously insulted certainly DO know copyright law.


Where did Random House come up with this? Did they get this case mixed up with another one?

And even more to the point: Without an affidavit from the creators of The Da Vinci Code attesting to their research, there is not a SHRED of legally credible evidence that they even DID any research.

Reality check, folks!

Experts Needed

If anything, my last post, " Selecting and Arranging Reality" illustrates the need for experts.

Random House either doesn't understand the theological system I created (or chooses not to) and how it differs from what would be considered history or fact. My interpretation is almost like a fingerprint that we find all over The Da Vinci Code.

Experts are, indeed, needed.

Selecting and Arranging Reality

I did not "select and arrange" anything as Random House claims at length beginning on Page 15 of their April 22, 2005 filing. If anyone has selected or arranged anything, it is Random House's fast and loose playing with reality.

Inconveniently for Random House, I have taken the historical and theological study and research I have conducted over the past 30 years and CREATED NEW interpretations (expression) of theology and other matters that are not an arrangement of existing fact, but a new system ... my interpretation, system and expression were what were copied.

If you read a brief description (starting on page 14) of what I created, you will see that I did not take "one fact from column A, one from column B, one from Column C ..." and so on as Random House argues. Instead, I questioned the "what if?" of how history and theology would be different and created an entirely new synthesis, an expression of an idea for the book. This expression, this creation is what was copied in Da Vinci Code.

Random House completely misrepresents the truth of the issue. On Page 13 of their April 22, 2005 filing, they erroneously claim that I am staking my copyright infringement claim on "well-tread terrain," and that I am staking my claim on a "melange of unprotected facts and ideas." The record shows that -- like so much Random House has packed into their April 22 filing -- is absolutely and PROVABLY false.

As my partial bibliography indicates, I have trod a great many miles of history, religion, theology, philosophy, archaeology and more. But rather than regurgitating that as Random House claims, I have used what I have seen on the journey to paint a new picture entirely.

Contrary to Random House's false claims (such as line five, page 14 of their April 22, 2005 filing) where they say I "proclaim a monopoly" over historical facts, I do no such thing and any attempt to say that is either a complete and total misreading of my filing or a deliberate perversion of the truth.

I claim no monopoly or copyright protection for the views along the road. The scenery belongs to all. But my painting of that view is mine alone and THAT belongs to me.

Specific Concrete Abstract Reality (Sorta)

In addition to their intellectual U-turn that Code and my works are no longer thrillers but historical novels, the Random House lawyers have decided to misrepresent all the hard, specific, concrete examples of plagiarism in my filings as "abstract" or "abstractions."

I suppose if the true nature of things is inconvenient, then trying to re-define reality is the best thing they could do. The only thing, actually, other than dealing with the facts.

They are simply NOT telling the truth.

While their April 22, 2005 filing, uses "abstract" or "abstractions" at least sixteen times by page 15, they conveniently omit the very concrete, specific, NON-abstract data -- include some very suspiciously similar language and context -- starting on Page 20 of my Rule 56 Counterstatement filed on April 8, 2005.

Likewise, they overlook other hard, specific, NON-abstract comparisons of infringement previously cited in every document I have filed since they started this whole mess.

If you want the opposite of abstract, just wander through the specifics in any of these documents:

The Nature of Forensic Evidence - Don't Get Distracted by the Fancy Dancing

The case against The Da Vinci Code has many different parts, but one of them is forensic evidence, specifically forensic linguistics. And like any case built upon the accumulation of forensic evidence, those parts of my case based on forensic linguistics must be considered as a whole.

If you look at a forensic case like the Atlanta Child Murders, it would be very easy for defendants to try and deconstruct things (as Random House is doing with my case) and focus on one single hair, one single fiber.

Focusing on that one hair (or three or four) among hundreds, the defense will try and make a big deal out of it AS IF it is the only piece of evidence to be considered. If a defense attorney can distract people into BELIEVING that this is the only hair that matters, then they have the opportunity to subvert the process of finding the truth.

In reality, the forensic part of this case -- like any other forensic case -- is built piece by piece by piece. And in cases like this there comes a time when, according to experts such as John Olsson of the Forensic Linguistics Institute, so many pieces accumulate that it is simply not believable that they all "just happened" by accident.

Random House and its supporters attempt this sort of distraction time and again, focusing on just one piece of an incredible chain of remarkable similarities, failing to address all of the others, in hopes they will distract you from the overwhelming nature of the evidence.

The forensic part of our case does not hinge on one item or ten or twenty. For the sake of argument, we could throw away every such focus of distraction and not weaken the overall case.

For, when it all comes down to it, how can all those similarities in characters, plot, themes, motivations, action sequence, symbolism and all the rest have "just happened" by accident?

They didn't.

Q. When Is A Thriller NOT a Thriller?

A. When Random House gets cornered and is struggling to make a point.

In every one of Random House's filings to date -- except for their April 22, 2005 filing, they have correctly referred to The Da Vinci Code and my works as "thrillers."

As pointed out on page 12 of my Rule 56 Counterstatement (numbers 137 and 151 and), Random House made assertions of what was and was not "typical" in a thriller WITHOUT submitting ANY legally acceptable evidence to corroborate their statements. This practice, which as you can see from looking at the filing, covers nearly every statement they made, violates the rules of evidence.


Instead of adopting their "from the hip," hearsay tactics, we introduced expert evidence demonstrating that substantial amounts of what Random House said was typical of a thriller, WASN'T typical at all.

So, how did they deal with that? Change the genre!!

If you look pages 16 (line 4) and 17 (line 6) of their April 22, 2005 filing, they have taken to calling these "historical novels."

I suppose that if we introduce evidence that these similarities are not typical of historical novels, Random House will start calling things science fiction. But the similarities STILL won't fit the "typical" mold.

Why do they need to continually resort to these intellectually dishonest tactics?

Brown's Bibliography Supports The Notion That DV Code Got Its Smoking Gun Mistake From DV Legacy

Dan Brown's online bibliography supports the logical conclusion that the Codex Leicester parchment error (see last post) in The Da Vinci Code actually came from my book, The Da Vinci Legacy.

The last post pointed out that in the absence of an affidavit from those involved in the production of The Da Vinci Code, the Random House argument about an alternate source is unsubstantiated hearsay which makes for good PR, but not evidence that is credible enough for a court of law.

While Brown's web bibliography is presented as a "partial" one, the four references expose a profound poverty of research concerning Leonardo -- hardly approaching "extensive." By contrast, my equally "partial" bibliography can be found in Exhibit A, filed with the court. This bibliography consists of ONLY those books which I currently have in my house. There are at least 14 books solely concerned with Leonardo.

Significantly, two of the four Leonardo books that Brown cites in his bibliography make NO mention at all of what the Codex was written on.

The third is not a book at all and the fourth clearly notes that the Codex Leicester was written on linen paper, not parchment.

What of Brown's four references?

The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci by Leonardo da Vinci -- There are many editions of this public domain work. The copy I have makes no mention of the page stock.

Leonardo: The Artist and the Man by Serge Bramly, Sian Reynolds. This makes no mention of page stock.

Prophecies by Leonardo da Vinci -- This is NOT actually a book, something that a search on Amazon, Google and A9 will confirm. However, my copy of The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci indicates it is a minor section in that book and makes no mention of page stock.

Leonardo da Vinci: Scientist, Inventor, Artist
, By Otto Letze -- My copy shows that it correctly states that the Codex Leicester was written on linen paper.

In the absence of any valid legal evidence attesting that any research was done at all, we can only guess that a partial bibliography would list the most significant sources first. Given that relatively logical assumption, we can see that none of Brown's references contain the smoking gun error. Therefore it must have been taken from my book , The Da Vinci Legacy.

The Smoking Guns - Random House Scrapes The Bottom of the Barrel

Since the beginning of this case, we and our experts have re-examined the works and have discovered three more smoking guns.

What do I mean by "smoking gun?" Well, the concept comes from the leading expert in American copyright law, the late professor Melvile B. Nimmer whose landmark work, Nimmer on Copyright is dutifully quoted by everyone from the U.S. Supreme Court right down to law students.

Nimmer cites shared mistakes as a smoking gun that one work plagiarized the other.

The smoking gun we have revealed thus far, is the undisputed fact that The Da Vinci Code shares an error with my thriller, Da Vinci Legacy in stating that Leonardo's Codex Leicester was written on parchment.

By the time I had finished with Da Vinci Legacy, my publisher, Pinnacle, was in the process of going bankrupt. Their editorial process was in disarray and this error was edited into my manuscript. I never had a chance to review the edits or proofs before the book went to press.

As we'll see in the next post, this error appears in no other novel but my book and Brown's. It also does NOT appear in any source which Brown lists in his bibliography, nor does it appear in ANY source, either in print or on the web, written by a Leonardo expert.

Indeed, despite their provably false claim that the error appears in many places (page 33, Item 138), Random House, in footnote 20, page 22 of their April 22, 2005 filing had to scrape the very bottom of the barrel to come up with a highly obscure, technical application case history from a technology company, National Instruments(see Exhibit F, Page 28), written not by a Leonardo scholar, but by a computer systems specialist.

There are two big legal problems with this.

1. In the absence of an affidavit, there is no legal verification that Dan Brown or any other person associated with Da Vinci Code ever saw the web-based article or relied upon it.

2. The Random House attorneys claim that the article was written by a "museum official," is -- like much of their work -- technically correct in the fine print, but misleading in the impression that the person who wrote it was an expert on Leonardo.

Indeed, there is every likelihood that the article was not actually written by the name appearing as the article's author, but by a tech writer or public relations person working for Microsoft, Bill Gates or National Instruments.

I would make this guess (unconfirmed and unverified) because I once ghost-wrote these sorts of articles, case histories, application notes for many corporate executives.

With no affidavits and nothing else that confirms almost anything factual about this issue, the Random House statements have no legal basis and should not be allowed in court or given any more credibility than the hearsay and conjecture they provable are at this point.

Next post: How the public statements and documents of Dan Brown and Random House indicate that this obscure article was NOT relied upon or even known by those involved in writing Da Vinci Code.

The Smoking Guns - Why No Dan Brown Affidavit? - Part 2

Whether Dan Brown, or someone else is responsible for the infringements is a curious issue which is unsettled, thanks to Random House's failure to file an affidavit. Perhaps is it part of a larger legal strategy.

The issue is vital because MOST of their April 22, 2005 filing, as well as their other legal briefs spend a vast number of words arguing that many of similarities they admit between the books are as the result of shared historical research.

But if they refuse to verify that such research was conducted by Brown, then their arguments are legally INadmissable, unverified and should be thrown out, dismissed by any discerning reader.

Their shared research argument makes for good public relations, but legally, they cannot properly rely upon that in a court of law. There are judicial standards of evidence to be met and they have failed on that score.

A court of law is a "prove it", not a "trust me" institution. Again, a no-brainer affidavit would have easily put this to rest.

In the next post, we'll see how this lack of an affidavit means that Random House has conceded by omission, my point about the shared mistake smoking gun.

The Smoking Guns - Why No Dan Brown Affidavit?

Beginning on Page 3 of my Rule 56 Counterstatement, we make it clear that, in the absence of an affidavit from Dan Brown, there is absolutely no LEGAL basis for believing ANY of the Random House statements dealing with the well-publicized but uncorroborated "extensive research," or even Brown's representations that he actually wrote The Da Vinci Code.

Random House has argued, in footnote 7, page 12 of their April 22, 2005 filing, that "While Brown's affidavit has not been submitted because it is not necessary for the purposed of the substantial similarity determination raised by this motion, the Court should not be mislead by Perdue's innuendoes: in the event this case progresses past this motion, Brown will unequivocally deny that he ever read -- or copied -- Perdue's books."

Okay, now read this carefully for what it does NOT SAY:

It does not say that Dan Brown will, under oath, testify that he wrote Da Vinci Code or did any research at all.

This is despite the fact that we specifically raised the issue in my Rule 56 Counterstatement. See numbered points 2, 3 as examples. They could have put the issue to rest with a no-brainer affidavit from Brown. But they did not. Why?

Now, just for the sake of argument (since Random House has offered no proof pro or con), if we assume that someone else wrote the Da Vinci Code , then Dan Brown may genuinely have not heard of me or my books. But the evidence we have presented makes it clear that SOMEONE associated with the book DID.

Finally, having a footnote in a legal filing that says that Brown will do something in the future is one of those, "wink, wink, nod, nod" "Trust me this will happen" things which is all that less credible given the verified distortions and falsehoods that have been documented here so far.

Leona Valley Reader Decries Random House Distortions

A reader from Leona Valley California emailed me last night with some very new, interesting and highly useful information about the case.

However, he also wrote, "Don't you think your posts are getting monotonous with the many comparisons showing how Random House has distorted things? It's clear that they are deliberately avoiding an accurate picture of the facts.

Look, it's a fact: lawyers lie. That's their job. They're not after the truth. They'll do anything, anything to win a case. It is all about winning, not about truth, justice, and that is the American way."

Yeah, I'd agree with Leona Valley if it wasn't my career at stake and my work that has been ripped off. And yes, there ARE a LOT of these errors. And yes, Random House lawyers HAVE twisted and distorted things so that ot appears I have NOT done things that I HAVE done. They have presented my own words in such a dishonest was as to make them appear totally opposite of what I actually said.

I'll get back to some of those distortions with specific examples and links to court documents and other sources that verify my words starting with the next post.

I would like to say that I am not naive enough to think that all courts are about justice. I grew up in Mississippi at a time when the courts were an instrument of oppression.

However, I refuse to believe that every lawyer holds the truth in as much contempt as the Random House lawyers seem to by their actions.

I continue to pray that the truth will prevail.

After all, Mark Twain said it best: "When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said."

Monday, April 25, 2005

Lies, Damned Lies and Random House Footnotes

I'm trying really hard to get past page five of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing and on to the rest of the pages, but it is truly difficult because nearly every sentence has something that is false, distorted or out of context like the bachelor thing in the last post.

Take, for example, footnote 3, page five of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing, makes the following ludicrously incorrect and provably false statement: "Perdue repeatedly refers to the 'remarkably similar hero and heroine' in both novels...yet notably never explains any real similarities between Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu from Da Vinci Code and Seth and Zoe Ridgeway from Daughter. To the contrary ...the characters have almost no, let alone "remarkable" similarities.

What on God's green Earth does Random House think this legal filing is about (starting on page 40) or this section (starting on page 3) from John Olsson's report?

Denying that something exists doesn't make it go away.

Q. When Is a Bachelor NOT a Bachelor?

A. When it suits Random House's litigation goals.

Beginning on page 29 of its Feb. 22, 2005 Memorandum of Law, Random states: "Unlike the married Ridgeway, Langdon has a "life-long affinity for bachelorhood and the simple freedoms it allowed."


The quote as it appears in context from DV Code reads:

"Langdon had never harbored delusions that a woman like Vittoria Vetra could have been happy living with him on a college campus, but their encounter in Rome had unlocked in him a longing he never imagined he could feel. His lifelong affinity for bachelorhood and the simple freedoms it allowed had been shaken somehow. . . replaced by an unexpected emptiness that seemed to have grown over the past year."

In FACT, Langdon is in the IDENTICAL -- not similar, identical -- state of mind as heroes Curtis Davis (DV Legacy) and Seth Ridgeway (Daughter of God).

In fact, Davis and Ridgeway -- like Langdon -- have lost their true love about a year before we see them.

Despite the Random House distortion of this issue, all three men are identical in most ways, including their emotional state when the book begins and their motivations.

Just look for yourself at my original legal filing (starting on page 40) or this section (starting on page 3) from John Olsson's report.

Those show men that are triplets right down to their psychological quirks.

Random House's every attempt at creating some distance between Langdon and the Heroes in DV Legacy and DoG fail in precisely the same ways: distortions, out-of-context quotes and omissions.

If you're going to argue differences, try "the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth."

Misrepresenting the Facts - Part 2

I mentioned a couple of posts ago that items 1, 5 and, 7 of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing misrepresented the facts. Actually item 6 should have been included as well.

Let's look at item 6

The filing states that I do not challenge:

"(6) the different treatment of religion in the characters' lives and the two books (religion is an important element in Perdue's characters' lives and each takes a personal religious journey, whereas Brown's book and characters are more secular and express no imperative to search for a relationship with God)."

However, that is NOT supported by Dan Brown or The Da Vinci Code.

"religion is an important element in Perdue's characters' lives"

And that's NOT the case in DV Code? Hardly! The entire book, like Daughter of God, is a quest driven by religion. Religion is vital to all of the characters in both books.

Secular?? Aringarosa and Silas the "monk" are hardly secular and while Langdon begins in a very secular way, by the end of the book, he experiences a religious epiphany and ecstasy to rival that of St. Francis or any other Catholic mystic.

From DVC: "Langdon felt himself awaken fully now to the thrill of unthinkable possibility...Alive with wonder, he stared once again downward through the glass at the tiny structure below....With a sudden upwelling of reverence, Robert Langdon fell to his knees...For a moment, he thought he heard a woman’s voice. . . the wisdom of the ages. . . whispering up from the chasms of the earth. THE END"

If this does not qualify as a "personal religious journey," then what does?

In addition, the Random House statement implies that all the characters in my books are on a personal religious journey. That is not correct either.

Dan Brown challenges the Notion That "Mary Married Jesus" is REALLY What DV Code is about

Random House's statement that DV Code is about "Mary Married Jesus" is NOT supported by Dan Brown's own public statements. Indeed this does not come up until AFTER the news media began to pick up on it.

So, what is it about, really? Here's what Dan Brown has to say:

From the New Hampshire newspaper, the Eagle-Tribune: " Brown described his book as an exploration of why the world has left women behind in religion, going from worshipping gods and goddesses to only gods, and how that shift affected culture.

"I simply explored a story about how and why the shift occurred, how it shaped our past and more importantly, how it may shape our future," he said. "In the major religions of the world, women remain second-class citizens. Why is this a problem?"

On March 20, 2003, Brown told the online book site, Book Reporter the following:

"Q: This novel is very empowering to women. Can you comment?"

"DB: Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future."

Another key indication of what DVC is actually about can be determined from an examination of the Reading Club Guide prepared by Random House.

Of the 18 questions in the guide, 15 are directly applicable to Linz and Daughter.

The issue of the suppression of the divine feminine is a major defining issue of infringement between my works and DVC because Dan Brown has repeatedly told interviewers that this is the story explored in DVC.

Its top-ranking as a defining issue is confirmed because it has been made a point of contention by those who have attacked DVC.

For example: "Mary is a central character in the novel—not the Mary Magdalene of the Bible, but the one of feminist mythology. She is depicted as Jesus’ head apostle, His wife, and the mother of His children. She is also, Brown writes, the real "Holy Grail." Readers are informed that all of this has been kept hidden by the Catholic Church, often by force and violence." (

Indeed, NOT the Mary Magdalene of the Bible, but as has been noted by many, DVC portrays the Mary Magdalene of the Gnostic texts, a stand-in for Sophia, the Great Goddess which was plagiarized from Linz and Daughter. But DVC doesn't simply adopt the Gnostic interpretation of Mary Magdalene.

Instead, Olson correctly asserts that: "In The Da Vinci Code, historian Teabing declares: "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene" (p. 248)."

This is by no means historical fact, but an inference from both the Christian New Testament and Gnostic writings. An inference I expressed in Linz and Daughter and which found its way into DVC, unchanged.

This was expressed, starting on page 18 of my Rule 56.1 Counterstatement and on pages 35 and 40 of that brief.

In addition, my Memorandum of Law in Opposition also explains how this is strikingly similar to Daughter of God beginning on page 22.

Misrepresenting the Facts - Part 1

I mentioned in the last post that items 1, 5 and, 7 of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing misrepresented the facts.

Let's look at those.

The filing states that I do not challenge:

"(1) the fundamental difference in the secret repressed by the church, namely the existence of an entirely fictional second female Messiah from a hamlet in Anatolia as opposed to the notion that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and had descendants."

However, that is NOT supported by my filings.

I certainly challenged this notion, starting on page 18 of my Rule 56.1 Counterstatement and on pages 35 and 40 of that brief.

In addition, my Memorandum of Law in Opposition also explains the dispute beginning on page 22

To say that I have not disputed that is demonstrably INCORRECT!

Why in the world would Random House write such false things and present them as fact in a legal filing??

Dodge The Issues If Discussing Them Is A Losing Proposition

The Random House attorneys are clever for sure. Rather than grapple with the facts and the systemic infringements, they prefer to misrepresent the facts, or to focus on the ways that DV Code is different from DV Legacy, Linz and Daughter of God.

This is what happens on page five of their April 22, 2005 filing.

Items 1, 5, and 7 are misrepresentations I'll deal with in another post. Items 2, 3 and 4 are typical of the Random House strategy of NOT dealing with similarities, but trying to distract attention to those areas of difference.

This latter strategy overlooks Supreme Court precedent: As Mr. Justice Learned Hand pointed out, "No plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate." (Sheldon V. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir), cert. Denied, 298 U.S. 669, 56 S.Ct. 835)

You can find more information about why differences don't count like similarities do at this link. Sorry it's an image, but court filings are .pdf's that are _image_ files which means that you can neither search through them nor cut and paste text.

Olsson Report "Improper?"

In footnote 2, page two of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing,, they blast me for the fact that my April 8, 2005 filings focus primarily on the similarities between Code and Daughter of God.

We HAD to do this because the court imposes a 40-page limit on the number of pages that each side can file. We did not "abandon" the claims in Da Vinci Legacy as Random House erroneously claims on page 2, but because of the page limit, had to focus on one book or the other.

So RH took the opportunity to MIS-represent why we did this. And because we still support the similarities between DV Code and DV Legacy, and because Legacy is inextricably bound to Linz and DoG, Olsson's comparison is FAR from improper as RH implies.

Random House should realize that the MASSIVE number of similarities that made it necessary to choose just one book on which to focus our filing, means that there are huge issues that should be decided in a trial.

A trial they are working very hard to deny me.

And never forget, they filed first against me to shut me up. Can't we allow the truth to emerge through the free enterprise of ideas?

Or is that what they fear?


Misleading Reference Insults The Search for Truth

Still on page 1 of Random House's April 22, 2005 filing, (whew! Didn't I tell you there ware a lot of opportunities here?)

They MIS-use footnote 1 at the bottom of the page to imply that Gary Goshgarian's Declaration supports their false contention that any similarities are isolated.

Far from it. Professor Goshgarian's declaration was included to show that many of the items that Random House was claiming as "typical" of a thriller or a "scene a faire" were NOT, indeed, what RH claimed.

FURTHER, they try to shoe-horn Olsson's comments into the mix to further try and imply that Olsson supports the RH distortions.

Goshgarian's analysis, like that from John Olsson, was a very quick and preliminary one which will be greatly expanded by them and other experts IF this matter is allowed to go to trial as it should.

Why does Random House so fear an open trial that they would mislead the reader of their brief? Are they hoping people won't read farther? The judge in this case will certainly read everything.

Aren't we looking for the truth here?

Or not?

Random House Says Trial and Experts are "Burdensome"

There they go again!

In the last line of page 1 and the first line of page 2 Random House's last line of page 1 of their April 22, 2005 filing, claims that a trial to settle these matters would be "burdensome."

Excuse me?!

Don't we have courts just for that reason? Don't we pay taxes to support a system for adjudicating these sorts of disputes?

Random House also states that the Court should deny me this opportunity to avoid the burden of "lay and 'expert' discovery and trial."

Now, I am REALLY confused. On just the previous page (middle of page 1) Random House argues for a "lay observer" and then less than 250 words later they think that is a burden?

Do they really mean they want to make sure that all the emails I got from "lay observers" don't get a fair hearing?

And what is burdensome about an expert -- somebody who actually KNOWS what they are talking about rather than the from-the-hip, trust-us-we-know-what's-best hearsay that comprises the Random House arguments?

Why don't they want any REAL evidence?

The Thorough, Systematic Looting of My Work Is NOT "Isolated!"


After hundreds of pages of filings describing what are now thousands of specific, systematic similarities in every regard, imagine my surprise when, on the last line of page 1 of their April 22, 2005 filing, Random House claims that the comparisons -- including one by forensic linguist John Olsson -- are "isolated similarities."


Denial at work yet again?

The Gold Key: If You Can't Win on the Facts, Then DENY It Exists

Shazam! (I'm running out of words to say "wow!")

After months of arguing that the gold key sequence is somehow a scene a faire or some other animal that is it NOT, Random House is now arguing that it doesn't exist!

Hmmm, this last-ditch strategy of denial is pretty interesting!

Did they do this because they FINALLY read Daughter of God for the first time? Or because the sequence and near-identical nature finally reached a critical mass that they could do nothing other than deny it?

This issue was raised in an earlier blog comment by "Vanessa."

I replied to that post in this way: " Vanessa: remember that the key here is "access."

"I was clear that the gold key in both DoG and Code did "not turn a lock."

"The ingot allowed access in the bank because it had the account number and then physically activated the Rube Goldberg-like mechanism in the salt mine.

"Likewise, in Code, the gold key allows access, but does not turn a lock. It does not unlock a safe deposit box, but allows access by activating the Rube Goldberg-like mechanism in the bank.

"Banks do not have any such thing. I think it is clear that the process was an intriguing and attractive one which was simply adapted by Brown."

Why No Dan Brown Affidavit?

I had a hard time getting to sleep last night thanks to the excitement of the scores of opportunities that Random House has provided us in their April 22, 2005 filing.

It is as significant for the many significant things it left unchallenged as it is for its mistakes and misrepresentations. The biggest challenge has been which of those to address first.

And just as we have found more and more similarities every time we go back and look at Code and my works, so do the opportunities in that filing multiple.

But after sleeping on things, I find this morning that I am at a total loss at this big issue:

Why would they simply throw in the towel on scores and scores of their claims and drop the issue of "extensive" research, just so they wouldn't have to file an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting that (a) he wrote the book and (b) he did the research claimed?

It was a slam-dunk easy way to tell us to "shove it" ... but they did not.


Sunday, April 24, 2005

Tech Guru Lends His Support

John Dvorak, tech writer, author, guru, wine lover, artist, polymath and Renaissance man has thrown in his support.

He aptly points out that "Nobody in the mainstream media wants to touch this story, by the way."

Not surprising, given the corporate clout of Random House and Bertelsmann.

Perdue Perplexed - Part 5 - The Plot Thickens

Now, I was TRULY amazed to read on page four of Random House's new filings that I had not disputed "virtually any of these controlling distinctions" between books, referring to a previous reference to structure, sequence, themes, characters etc.

This would lead one to believe that the Random House attorneys had not actually READ the 25 pages of plot similarities beginning on page 14 of this January 6, 2005 filing.

And least we think this was a simply mistake on Random House's part, they REPEAT the same error on page five of their new filings: "Critically, Perdue does not dispute the fundamental differences in plot, characters, themes, setting and 'total concept and feel' between the books...."

Well, CRITICALLY, every filing of mine DOES dispute this in every way possible.

It's hard to figure out how RH thought it was going to get away with such repeated errors and complete misrepresentations of the truth.

In addition, in their filings, Random House fabricated a plot description carefully spun to support only their case.

While I know this counts as "good lawyering" it also skates close to presenting a false picture.

Rather than do the same shaky thing, we decided, to use a description of DV Code (see p. 14) from a respectable online encyclopedia, a credible third party not associated with me or Random House and which had no interest in slanting the plot description for its own purposes.

And of course, we disputed all the issues they claim we have not, including those related to the characters, as shown by the seven pages of non-coincidental similarities which begin on page 40 of that January 6 filing.

And then, of course, we continued the dispute showing far more detailed analysis beginning on page 20 of my April 8, 2005 filings that provide 20 pages more of specific examples of identical or near identical context, character motivation, speech patterns and even paragraphs of strikingly similar writing.

And even that was followed up by four more pages in an addendum to that last filing.

Where in the world could the Random House attorneys come up with the idea that we were not disputing those things? Do they think that if they repeat a falsehood enough times people will begin to believe it?

And why would they write something like that which cannot be supported by the court record?

And finally, why did they FAIL to respond to most of the specific items? Compare their April 22 filing with just one of mine, the April 8 one. Now go through and count the instances where they came to grips with a specific charge and addressed it specifically rather than simply waving their hands in the air and declaring the charges irrelevant with no documentation to back up their statements.

Now, why would they do THAT?

========= RESOURCES ==========

A complete summary of filings can be found at the legal filing and resources page">

Perdue Perplexed, Part 4 - The Dog That Didn't Bark

Sometimes the most important things are those that are not there. Such as an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting that he conducted the "extensive research" he claims and that he actually wrote The Da Vinci Code.

In both their previous filings, Random House has repeatedly cited the extensive research that Dan Brown allegedly conducted for The Da Vinci Code as evidence that he didn't need to plagiarize me.

Take, for example, the bottom of Page two of this filing which says, "The factual foundation to Da Vinci Code -- from which the fictional novel emerges -- is based on extensive interviews and research that Brown had conducted...."

Leaving aside for the moment the 13 or more books detailing extensive and seemingly obvious errors in The Da Vinci Code, such a statement concerning "extensive research" is something that can be bandied about in news releases and other publicity and promotion.

But when it comes to court matters, statements of this sort are hearsay and cannot be accepted as evidence. To make this legally acceptable would require an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting to his authorship and his performance of the research.

This is a key issue because Random House has tried to assert that many, many of the similarities between Code and my work are based on shared historical research and that assumes, without evidence, that Brown actually conducted the research.

With that in mind, this filing of April 8, 2005, states that all of the Random House statements on historical research are without evidentiary basis. Because of the lack of legally acceptable evidence (such as an affidavit from Dan Brown), this filing states clearly that there is no legal evidence to form a valid opinion that Brown did or did not conduct the research, nor that he wrote or did not write The Da Vinci Code.

Oddly enough, while Random House's new filings continue to argue about common historical research, they have dropped their claims of brown's "extensive" research. And they finally argue in footnote 7, page 12 that such a legal confirmation of authorship and research is "not necessary."

Swearing out that sort of affidavit is a no-brainer. So why did this dog not bark? Why is there no affidavit from Dan Brown attesting to authorship and the hyper-promoted "extensive research?"

I am one baffled guy.

Maybe some reader out there can figure out why why Random House didn't just put this issue to rest with a Dan Brown affidavit.

========= RESOURCES ==========

A complete summary of filings can be found at the legal filing and resources page">

Perdue Perplexed - Part 3 - Why Do Experts Frighten Random House?

On pages 22 and 23 of the Random House April 22 filing they continue their efforts to convince the judge NOT to allow any expert testimony? Why would they want to exclude the insights of those whose business it is to determine whether or not infringement has taken place?

This is doubly confusing because Random House spends large portions of all of their filings arguing about "scenes a faire," stock elements and elements that are protectible or not protectible under copyright.

Interestingly, they cite no experts, no sources other than themselves, and no credible, third parties to elevate their own arguments beyond those of people "shooting from the hip."

I am REALLY perplexed here: if the object is to find the truth, shouldn't we all employ people who are experts on the issues?

Maybe some reader out there can enlighten us on why Random House is trying so hard to keep experts out of the discussion.

========= RESOURCES ==========

A complete summary of filings can be found at the legal filing and resources page">

Perdue Perplexed - Part 2 - "Lay Readers" Email Plagiarism Thoughts

Here's a REALLY baffling one: On page one, line 11 of the Random House filing,, RH argues that "the only issue is whether, from the perspective of a discerning lay observer, the protectible elements of the two works -- not historical facts, ideas or scenes a faire -- are substantially similar."

I am not sure how much more of a lay observer you can get than the unsolicited emails I started to get from complete strangers telling me that they thought Code had plagiarized me. Some of those emails can be found beginning on page 48 of my complaint filed on Jan. 6, 2005

I don't quite understand why Random House would do this. Do you suppose they just forgot about those?

Maybe some reader out there can enlighten us on why Random House would make that statement?

========= RESOURCES ==========

A complete summary of filings can be found at the legal filing and resources page.

Perdue Perplexed: Needs Enlightenment - Part 1

If you've been following the legal filing and resources page you'll notice that Random House filed a response on Friday, 4/22/2005 to the papers I filed on 4/8/2005.

What makes this latest filing so perplexing is the enormous number of factual errors, distortions and puzzling inconsistancies.

I don't quite understand why Random House would do this. Were the statements I made in the previous filings too obscure?

Perhaps you, the reader, can find enlighten us all.

On page two of their document, RH says, "Perdue has understandably abandoned his claim that Da Vinci Code infringes his other novel, The Da Vinci Legacy."

Wow! That is sure a surprise to me!

Gee, if that were the case, then we never would have included an affidavit from John Olsson, Director of the Forensic Linguistics Institute whose preliminary report (beginning on page 7 of that declaration) revealed so many similarities.

Are there any readers out there who might enlighten us on why Random House would make that statement?

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Connecting Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God

I've had several readers email me asking about the connection between Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God

The Linz Testament and DoG are _continuations_ of a theme I began in Da Vinci Legacy.

The THREE books are closely linked to one another. I would never have written Linz and DoG had I not started the process in DVLegacy ...

The Elect Brothers of St. Peter are patterned after and inspired by the Templars which is why

- they originated in about the same time period
- under similar circumstances
- have the same motives (protect and continue the bloodline, restore the proper leadership and theology to the church),
- the same physical treasure to protect (bones of the bloodline's origin),
- have associated themselves with scientific, literary, artistic and musical luminaries,
- have a secret that would destroy the Church as it exists today,

Plus DVLegacy has strikingly similar characters to those in DVCode and the hero and heroine who are co-equal as in DoG and DVC ... very unusual for a thriller, but symbolic of the co-equal male and female characters of God.

Then, of course, there is the issue of a similar title, which while not protectible, can be used as evidence of infringement

It Isn't Easy Being Dan Brown

Back on March 21, Lee Goldberg began a series of posts on his blog that pretty well dismissed Dan Brown's claims that he was allowed through airport security with no identification, just the author photo on one of his books. We could pretty well imagine the TSA inspector doing that being sentenced to biothreat inspections at a bird-flu-infested chicken farm.

But that example shows how the media have given Brown's statements a pampered free ride, a cushy, non-critical acceptance of anything that rolls out of his (or his publicist's) mouth.

Edward Wyatt, the NY Times person who wrote the book-jacket story is just one of many in the mainstream media who are blinded by Brown's celebrity and the awesome publicity machine that Random House has mustered for the occasion.

Fortunately, we have seen any number of occasions where blogs have picked up on the truth and broken stories that the mainstream media were too blind, too clueless, had too many conflicts of interest or spent too much in bed with those it should be covering.

As I mentioned above, this thread began at Lee Goldberg's Blog: A Writer's Life. It's well worth reading.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The More We Look, The More We Find

Somebody at Random House should pick up on the fact that every time we have to do a new legal filing, we take another look at things and we find more and more infringements.

That should give them a clue as to where this is all heading. There is a LOT more like the new material below including sentence structure, word choices etc.

For example?

We're pretty familiar with the remarkable chain of IDENTICALITIES between Code and Daughter regarding the gold key, Zurich bank etc. That latter sequence has been around for a while. But when we prepared the latest set of legal filings, John Olsson and one of our other experts looked at it again and found even more. The sequence, below, has the new similarities in bold italics.

In Da Vinci Code and Daughter of God, the following sequence of events takes place precisely as presented in BOTH books and are identical in events, pacing, tone and sequence in both books:

A slain curator of art leaves a gold key,
  • Concealed in a work of art,
  • Painted on wood.
  • That work of art is named for the divine feminine at the center of the book.
  • The gold key is not a traditional key that opens a tumbler. Indeed, owing to gold's softness and malleability, a key made of it is patently impractical and, for that reason, not employed by banks, Swiss or otherwise.
  • This unique gold key is left (with no instruction) for the book's heroine
  • Who is, herself, a symbol of and related to the divine feminine.
  • The gold key allows access (but does not turn a lock) to a safe deposit box in a Zurich bank.

  • At the Zurich bank, the Protagonists are met by an elderly old world Banker.

  • While at the bank, the Protagonists make an error in behavior that could tip-off the bank officials they are not legitimate. But the moment passes.
  • While at the bank, the Protagonists are locked inside the viewing room. [see more on this, below]
  • Finally, at the end of the scene, the Protagonists must break OUT of a bank. [Very, very unusual for a thriller].
  • The contents of the container holds additional clues to finding the object of their search that send the hero and heroine to a foreign country.
  • The object of their search is a set of physical evidence and documents relating to the divine feminine at the heart of the book.
The Viewing Room

Analysis by John Olsson

In the viewing room at the bank The Da Vinci Code:

"Langdon and Sophie stepped into another world. The small room before them looked like a lavish sitting room at a fine hotel. Gone were the metal and rivets, replaced with oriental carpets, dark oak furniture, and cushioned chairs. On the broad desk in the middle of the room, two crystal glasses sat beside an opened bottle of Perrier, its bubbles still fizzing. A pewter pot of coffee steamed beside it."

In the viewing room at the bank from Daughter of God

"Ridgeway and Zoe looked silently about them. The room was the size of a luxury hotel room and furnished in much the same way. Besides the sofa and chairs, there was a television set, a rack of current magazines, a small computer terminal displaying financial quotes, and a wet bar stocked with liquor. Ridgeway went to the wet bar, set the wrapped painting down on the counter, and filled a tumbler with water from a chilled bottle of Perrier."

Langdon and Sophie = Ridgeway and Zoe

hotel room...lavish = luxury hotel room

cushioned chairs = sofa and chairs

bottle of Perrier = bottle of Perrier

"Interesting you chose Perrier," Olsson wrote. "I would have imagined most Swiss banks would probably have had Henniez, since Perrier, though owned by Swiss company Nestle, is of course French."

Locked inside the viewing room

DoG: "The door slid shut as firmly and solidly as a vault door. Ridgeway tried the knob. It was locked."

DVC: "Leaving, the banker closed the door behind him and twisted a heavy lock, sealing them inside."

Locking someone inside the viewing room is simply NOT done, NOT standard procedure and, as far as I know, simply does not appear elsewhere in any other books.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Gnostic Gnonsense!

One of the things that Random House has constantly asserted is that Dan Brown and I relied on the same historical documents and thus it would be reasonable for some parts to be similar.

As an example of that, Random House submitted a chapter of The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels with their last set of filings.

But, as it turns out, that may not have been the best example that Random House could have used.

The following excerpt from Lewis Perdue Declaration pages 1-21.pdf will give you an idea of what the facts really are. I will be posting excerpts on a daily basis, but -- because of the legal process -- must let the statements speak mostly for themselves with a minimum of additional comment and/or clarification.

However, the bottom line (quoting from my affidavit) is: " The simple fact is that the version of history that I created by sampling various of the Gnostic Gospels cannot be found in any single Gnostic Gospel....28. The matters regarding the Gnostic Gospels that Brown used in his novel constituted my unique view of those Gospels. They are a synthesis created by me of matters from the Gnostic Gospels. My synthesis cannot be found in any single Gnostic Gospel. Furthermore, I embellished on matters found in the Gnostic Gospels. To the extent that Brown’s expressions are identical to mine, the conclusion is compelling that he could only have copied from me."

Links contained [within brackets] are added for your convenience and do not appear in the court filings.


25. It is critical to recognize that I did not simply regurgitate the results of my re-search into Daughter. Much of my research involved the Gnostic Gospels, discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, but not translated until the 1970’s, and works commenting upon those Gospels. However, contrary to the false impressions created by the Plaintiffs, the Gnostic Gospels do not represent a set of uniform religious beliefs which would present a consistent and uniform source that could easily be consulted by myself or Brown.

26. To the contrary, some of the Gnostic Gospels differ markedly from other Gnostic Gospels, particularly regarding an issue that is central to both Daughter and Code, namely, the importance, or lack thereof, of the female in God’s redemptive scheme. In writing Daughter, not only did I pick and choose among the differing religious beliefs expressed in different Gnostic Gospels, but I also employed my artistic license to blend those differing religious beliefs and, in certain instances, to embellish upon them to create a holistic interpretation that is not present in the original documents The simple fact is that the version of history that I created by sampling various of the Gnostic Gospels cannot be found in any single Gnostic Gospel.

27. In their motion, Plaintiffs, without any evidentiary support whatsoever, seem to suggest the Brown simply read the Gnostic Gospels, or that he read Elaine Pagels’ work, The Gnostic Gospels and then adopted the ideas and beliefs expressed in those Gospels into Code. Hence, Plaintiffs have falsely contended (without any evidentiary support or even a declaration from Brown that this is what he actually did) that Brown could have simply used unprotected matters that are in the public domain when he wrote Code. But, of course, that is impossible.

28. The matters regarding the Gnostic Gospels that Brown used in his novel consti-tuted my unique view of those Gospels. They are a synthesis created by me of matters from the Gnostic Gospels. My synthesis cannot be found in any single Gnostic Gospel. Furthermore, I embellished on matters found in the Gnostic Gospels. To the extent that Brown’s expressions are identical to mine, the conclusion is compelling that he could only have copied from me.


29. Gnostic beliefs are so diverse and encompass such a remarkably broad spectrum of beliefs, traditions, philosophies and theologies as to render the term “Gnosticism” useless. Because of this multiplicity of interpretations, there are almost as many “theologies” of Gnosti-cism as there are people pondering the subject.

30. Because of this intellectual and spiritual variation, it is remarkable that the inter-pretation of Gnosticism in Code is virtually identical to that which I created and expressed in Daughter, and previously in Linz.

31. Further, Plaintiffs’ attorneys have erroneously sought to excuse those similarities by attempting to show a common source in The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Because Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that author Dan Brown ever conducted his frequently touted “extensive research” nor any proof he ever read The Gnostic Gospels it would not be ap-propriate to speak to the common historical source issue in that context.

32. However, it is possible to show that my interpretation of Gnostic beliefs ex-pressed in Daughter and Linz is a unique personal creation which differs substantially from that in The Gnostic Gospels and every other Gnostic “school,” and yet is expressed identically in Code. In other words, I “imagined” a Gnostic philosophy that was unorthodox and unexpressed in any non-fiction historical or theological work and yet that same unorthodox image is found in Code.

33. My theological creation differs because I picked and chose among the wide vari-ety of Gnostic beliefs in order to best fit the motivations of my characters, the movement of the sequence of events, the underlying symbolism and, in the end, the lessons I wanted my charac-ters and my readers to take away from the books.


34. Gnostic writings vary so enormously that one prominent authority, The Catholic Encyclopedia whose contents speak with the approval of the Vatican says that defining the entire realm of “Gnosticism” is fundamentally impossible because of “...the obscurity, multiplicity and wild confusion of Gnostic systems....” (Exhibit “B”). [ Exhibit B.pdf]

35. Another prominent source, the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Helsinki explains that the term “Gnosticism” covers so much intellectual territory that many scholars feel the term itself is not useful. (Exhibit “C”). [ Exhibit C.pdf]

36. Indeed, the only common definition of Gnosticism which finds acceptance in or-thodox Catholic circles as well as by non-theologically oriented scholars is “those religious doc-trines and myths of late antiquity that maintain or presuppose that the cosmos is a result of the activity of an evil or ignorant creator and that salvation is a process in the course of which a human being receives the knowledge of his/her divine origin and returns to the realm of light after having been freed from the limitations of the world and the body.” (Exhibit “C”).

37. Ironically, I rejected this fundamental premise when I created the interpretation of Gnosticism that appears both in Daughter and Brown’s Code. Thus, Plaintiffs grossly misinter-pret the theological foundations and symbolic expression that appears in both novels. Hence, Exhibit “D” of the McNamara affidavit [(2005-02-25) Perdue - McNamara Afd with Exhibits.pdf] is neither appropriate nor significantly relevant to the current case because the views expressed by Pagels are different from the views expressed by me and Brown.


38. Pagels’ landmark work, The Gnostic Gospels, interprets Gnosticism within the framework of orthodox Christian thought, examining the reasons why Gnostic scriptures were not included among the canon of what would become the Catholic Church. It is worth noting that none of her writing places great emphasis on the role of Constantine in this process, nor on the Council at Nicea, which is expressed very forcefully in Daughter and Code, counter to most mainstream historical sources.

39. Indeed, The Gnostic Gospels focuses almost entirely on one major school of Gnostic thought, that of Valentinus. According to Exhibit C, “Valentinian Christianity is the clearest example of a gnostic school which stresses Christian elements. The group received its title from a Christian named Valentinus, a native of Egypt, who was a teacher in congregations in Rome in the second half of the second century.”

40. Contrary to the Valentinian backbone of The Gnostic Gospels, I created a phi-losophy that was closer to -- but not entirely of -- The Sethian school which Pagels mentions only in passing.

41. I named the hero of Daughter, Seth, to symbolically recognize my debt to this school of Gnosticism. But I did not adopt the Sethian philosophy whole cloth. I selected two of its major tenets:
A. The reverence for Sophia and her divine position as female deity, creator, savior and incarnation of the Great Goddess. I established Sophia as the female aspect of the one Creator of the Universe, and
B. Some (but not all) Sethian interpretations of Genesis 2-6, most signifi-cantly for this case, the creation of Eve and the eating of the tree of knowledge. (Exhibit “D”: Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History, John D. Turner, Professor of Religious Studies at The University of Nebraska). [Exhibit D.pdf]

42. Significantly, I named the heroine of Daughter, Zoe (another name for Eve) to symbolize her role as the progeny of Sophia, making her a “Daughter of God.” Code uses this precise and identical symbolism. The heroine of Code is named Sophie (the diminutive of Sophia) Neveu ("new Eve"). Sophie is represented as the progeny of Mary Magdalene who -- in the Gnostic interpretations of Daughter and Code -- is seen as The Great Goddess, Sophia.

43. The issue of the eating of the tree of knowledge is examined in the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith as that of “Goddess Eating” and the roots of the Christian community. As illustrated in the Memorandum of Law this concept is expressed in identical terms and near-identical words in both Daughter and Code.

44. It is vital to understand that neither the Gnostic Gospels nor any other “school” of Gnosticism offers systematic support for these or the other interpretations because I created them, yet we find them expressed identically in both Daughter and Code.

45. Also significantly, I rejected the fundamental Sethian concept of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, as savior, and instead extended the concept of Sophia into the notion of her as, in the words of Prof. Turner, “Mother of the Logos and as the Mother figure in a divine triad of God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.” (Exhibit “D”).

46. Given the astoundingly similar expressions in Daughter and Code of the divine Feminine (Mary/Sophia/Great Goddess) and the importance of sex, two further points need seri-ous consideration:
A. There was, by no means, a consensus among Gnostics that Sophia was divine nor that women were to enjoy equal status with men. Indeed, some Gnostic writing required that women had to become men before they could enter heaven.
B. There was also no consensus that love, sex or erotic thought was associated with Sophia or the Goddess. Indeed, some Gnostic schools felt that the physical realm was so evil that adherents ought to be celibate.

47. Even though Pagels interprets Gnostic thought in the framework of Christianity and focuses on the Valentinian school, she says “...the texts themselves are extremely diverse...” and frequently illustrates her selections and demonstrates her recognition of the vast theological spectrum with frequent references. For example, in the chapter submitted by Plaintiffs as Exhibit “D”, Pagels frequently prefaces her words with “One group of gnostic sources...”, “some gnostics adopted this idea,” “several gnostic sources describe...”, “according to one teacher…”, “other gnostics attributed....”

48. The number of these instances is too numerous to list here completely, but the central point is that Pagels is presenting her interpretation and analysis of Gnosticism by selectively quoting and emphasizing certain sources and omitting others. This is an academically sound method. While Daughter obviously does not rise to the academic level of The Gnostic Gospels, I used the exact same process of selection and rejection of concepts, relying on many, many different sources (Exhibit “A” [ Exhibit A.pdf]) to form the scholarly basis of my own interpretation.

49. But if the two novels were relying upon Pagels as a common source, those two works would be expected to include Pagels’ interpretation or a subset of her work, rather than duplicating a different interpretation as has happened with Daughter and Code – an interpretation which is original and unique to me.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Newest Batch of Legal Filings Posted

All the latest filings are here: along with an updated court docket. The docket links go to the Court's PACER system, but I have everything on the site except for things like the notice of papers being served etc.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Thanks to Laura Miller, Salon

My thanks to Laura Miller for the title of this blog which comes from her article in Salon entitled, "The Da Vinci Crock." (Article is free, no registration but you will have to look at a quick advertisement.)

Ms. Miller offers a stunningly concise roundup of why she thinks the Code is, in her words, a "crock."

My goal with this blog is to provide as complete a resource as possible for the many well-documented books, articles and blogs that have likewise detected the bull offal essence of the Code. Prodigious quantities of this essence has been detected. To hold it all would require a Congressional-sized crock.

I will also use this to keep people up to date on my legal battle over the Crock as well.

My lawyers made new filings in court on Frida, April 8, and I'll be posting them as soon as I have time.

Two significant things about the new filings:

First, we have expanded the number of significant infringements considerably. It seems that every time a new expert takes a look at the works, OR an existing expert takes another look, more and more and more infringements come out of the woodwork.

As a result, there are a LOT more details in my new filings and a LOT MORE which we simply did not have allotted space to detail.

Second, that reference to "allotted space" in the previous sentence refers to the fact that the Court has restricted filings to a maximum of 40, double-spaced pages. We have found so many new infringements that go to the very heart of the books that the lawyers had to forego information dealing with Da Vinci Legacy and concentrate on just Daughter of God.

In other words, because of space limitations and new infringement data, we had to ignore (for these filings) the hard evidence of infringement between Da Vinci Legacy and Code.

We also had to omit some of the specific details of the new Daughter of God infringements that were found. I'll post some of them on this blog as well.