Stealing The Code

So we find out that the anti-Catholic novelist isn't even original? How shocking from a man who claims as FACT all the premises in his book. Seems that the man misleading the millions of readers of his book (and movie that's in production) has a bit of a problem on his hands...

DAN Brown, the author of last year's best-selling "The Da Vinci Code," is nothing but a plagiarist, charges the author of two novels that are strikingly similar to Brown's.

Author Lewis Perdue is preparing to sue Brown for copyright infringement, claiming "The Da Vinci Code" is in large part stolen from his 1983 novel, "The Da Vinci Legacy" and its 1985 follow-up, "Daughter of God" - which were both recently optioned by "Survivor" creator Mark Burnett.

A representative for Brown's publisher, Random House, says, "The charges are without merit."

All three books are about a woman who stumbles onto a bizarre plot by the Catholic church to cover up evidence of a female messiah. Within that context, Perdue alleges very specific parallels.

According to documents prepared by John Olsson, head of the Forensic Linguistics Institute - who is helping Perdue prepare his case for free - in all three novels:

* The action is launched by the murder of an art expert who is found dying in his office, and who scribbles a clue in his own blood.

* The male hero, who knows the murdered expert, is accused of the killing.

* The clue left by the dead expert leads the hero and heroine to a painting on a wood panel whose title refers to the woman being worshipped in the novel.

* The curator in charge of the painting gives the heroine a gold key that opens a safe deposit box in a Zurich bank, which holds yet another container requiring a combination.

* Leonardo Da Vinci's notebook "Codex Leicester" is used to make a critical plot point. Strangely, both novelists make the same factual error about the famous work. Da Vinci wrote the book - now known as "Codex Hammer" - on 18 double-sided sheets of linen loose-leaf paper. Perdue and Brown both mistakenly state that it was written on parchment.