1. Despite page after page of arguments, the Random House/Sony lawyers did NOT address or refute many of my key arguments

2. Many of the similarities the court excluded because it said they were history or facts, were actually my creative distortions of the fact and not history at all.

"The District Court erred in holding that virtually the entire quasi-religious and quasi-historical sequence of the novels was unprotected, even though much of Perdue’s “history” was not history at all but was created by him as a literary device and despite the fact that it was Perdue who originally expressed these historical distortions in entirely and new original ways (later copied by Brown) in order to create a more interesting work of fiction."

"The mere fact that an author chooses to characterize something in the context of his writing as historical fact does not make it so for the purpose of making an analysis of similarities between works. The putative “historical facts” may, as in the instant case, be fictional and there would therefore be no reason to characterize such “facts” as unprotected elements. "

"Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to show that Perdue’s historical inventions were instead actual historical facts, yet the District Court accepted Plaintiffs’ arguments as to what was and was not history."

"one author cannot choose to inhabit a fictional universe created by another author."

"the findings of the District Court were based, not upon the evidence submitted by the parties, but rather on the personal perception of the District Court "

3. Despite the District Court pretending to be an average lay reader, it inappropriately made conclusions and decisions only an expert could competently make while inappropriately excluding all my expert testimony.

4. Even if the court were an expert, its use of such expert knowledge does not adhere to the standard and is improper because it bases a judicial decision on evidence that is not part of the proceedings.

"Unless the District Court had a special historical expertise, it could not begin to decide what was and was not an historical fact. But even if the District Court did have such expertise, it would have been reversible error to rely solely upon such expert knowledge because that would have deprived Perdue of the ability to counter the historical opinions of the District Court with his own historical evidence."

"Without the benefit of any evidence or expert guidance, and under circumstances that would make judicial notice inappropriate, the District Court proceeded to speak as only an expert can speak because many of its statements would have required an encyclopedic knowledge of the appropriate genre, as well as world and religious history."

"While perhaps the District Court was an expert, absent an evidentiary basis, the District Court should not be allowed to use that expertise to decide the motions because the determination would not be based on the evidence. "

"the District Court should not have made its determination without any fact or opinion evidence.

5. Neither Dan Brown or his legal surrogates have denied the charges in my declaration.

"Brown never swore under oath that he conducted any research when he wrote Code, what books, if any, he read, that he never read Daughter or Legacy, and that he did not copy portions of Daughter or Legacy. ..and even after Perdue accused Brown of having copied that expression, Brown still did not respond under oath. Indeed, neither Brown, nor anyone else acting on his behalf, ever denied the charges made by Perdue in his Declaration. "