Self-Righteous Blather From Random House
From Publisher's Weekly:
"Doubleday expectedly had no comment on the story. A statement from spokesperson Suzanne Herz said: 'The verdicts in favor of Dan Brown, in two United States Federal Courts and the British High Court of Justice, speak for themselves. We have heard from one of the most prestigious copyright districts in the U.S. courts with the appeals court ratifying their decision. Those opinions carry a lot more weight than those of Mr. Mnookin and Mr. Perdue. We have no further comment about the Vanity Fair story'."
As documented on this blog and elsewhere, to accomplish what they have in court so far, Random House had to game the legal system and file a raft of briefs so filled with distortions, falsehoods and misrepresentations that they'd be nailed for perjury IF the briefs had been submitted as sworn testimony.
But RH did not file those as sworn statements for obvious reasons.
As pointed out previously, the only statements sworn under oath and under penalty of perjury are my two affidavits and those of two expert witnesses whose testimony would not be considerered by the judge.
So the things that "speak for themselves" are the Random House legal shenanigans and their successful exploitation of loopholes that have subverted any measure of justice.
This was a lawsuit that never needed to happen and never would have happened if Random House had not filed the lawsuit . Their litigation is frivolous, vindictive and an abuse of the process.
Perhaps the law has been fulfilled, but no justice has been done.
There is a lot more to the truth yet to come out.
The Vanity Fair piece could only begin to scratch the surface, but it shows what can happen when a reporter does some independent research rather than being spoon-fed by the Random House PR machine.