Benjamin DuBay vs Stephen King: Jim Warren's Deposition
A recent case that appears to have slipped under a lot of radars, and that's a shame as it's turning into a right doozy, is Benjamin DuBay vs Stephen King.
In short DuBay, the nephew of comic book creator Bill DuBay, is claiming that King, the legendary author of all things horror, stole the concept for the hugely popular series (and a rather poor film) The Dark Tower from Bill DuBays Warren series The Rook. Naturally King denies this, as you'd expect him to. There's an obscene amount of money involved with this, as you'd expect, as King's work is probably more profitable than anyone out there.
The case has been quietly motoring along the usual grounds, but depositions released show the full extent of the back story of how Warren worked as a publisher, and how The Rook came into being. That's always a good thing for historians, but what really separates this case from most other copyright cases are accusations of forgery, witness tampering, theft and outright lying, both back in the day and now.
Part of DuBay's case hangs on this document, a copyright assignment notice signed in 1986 by James Warren. This document gives Bill DuBay the rights to The Rook, free and clear. As the following deposition will show, there's one major problem with this piece of paper - Warren is adamant that he did not sign it, that he has no knowledge of it and he would never have authorised it.
If Warren did not sign this agreement, then who did? And why was such a document drawn up two years after Warren Publishing had gone bankrupt and sold off their assets at auction? Is it true, as Warren says, that the letterhead used in this document was not used post 1980? There's a lot of questions that still remain unanswered so far.
Make no mistake, this case is well worth reading. Naturally, to save everyone the time, I've gotten hold of the more interesting documents and I'll be posting them here over the coming weeks. Expect to see, and hear, a lot more about this case as it continues to unfold.
In the meantime, may I present to you, Mr James Warren as you've never seen him before. Under oath. It's a lot to read, but it is well worth it.
--------------------------
In short DuBay, the nephew of comic book creator Bill DuBay, is claiming that King, the legendary author of all things horror, stole the concept for the hugely popular series (and a rather poor film) The Dark Tower from Bill DuBays Warren series The Rook. Naturally King denies this, as you'd expect him to. There's an obscene amount of money involved with this, as you'd expect, as King's work is probably more profitable than anyone out there.
The case has been quietly motoring along the usual grounds, but depositions released show the full extent of the back story of how Warren worked as a publisher, and how The Rook came into being. That's always a good thing for historians, but what really separates this case from most other copyright cases are accusations of forgery, witness tampering, theft and outright lying, both back in the day and now.
Part of DuBay's case hangs on this document, a copyright assignment notice signed in 1986 by James Warren. This document gives Bill DuBay the rights to The Rook, free and clear. As the following deposition will show, there's one major problem with this piece of paper - Warren is adamant that he did not sign it, that he has no knowledge of it and he would never have authorised it.
If Warren did not sign this agreement, then who did? And why was such a document drawn up two years after Warren Publishing had gone bankrupt and sold off their assets at auction? Is it true, as Warren says, that the letterhead used in this document was not used post 1980? There's a lot of questions that still remain unanswered so far.
Make no mistake, this case is well worth reading. Naturally, to save everyone the time, I've gotten hold of the more interesting documents and I'll be posting them here over the coming weeks. Expect to see, and hear, a lot more about this case as it continues to unfold.
In the meantime, may I present to you, Mr James Warren as you've never seen him before. Under oath. It's a lot to read, but it is well worth it.
--------------------------
BENJAMIN DUBAY, Plaintiff
vs.
STEPHEN KING, Defendant
VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF JAMES WARREN
November 8, 2017
APPEARANCES
BENJAMIN MICHAEL
DUBAY,
PRO SE
VINCENT COX, ESQUIRE
COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WARREN,
CALLED AS A WITNESS IN THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDING, AND HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY
SWORN, TESTIFIED AND SAID AS
FOLLOWS:
Examination by Attorney
Cox: Good morning, Mr. Warren. My name is Vincent Cox and I represent Stephen
King and the other Defendants in a case that's been brought by Benjamin DuBay.
It relates to a
work entitled The Rook, and I'm going
to be asking you some questions about that.
But in typical
lawyer fashion, I'm going to have to go through some preliminary matters in
order to --- before I get to those.
Let me begin by
asking if you understand that you're under oath.
Do you understand
that you're under oath today?
A: I do.
Q: And are you
familiar with a deposition proceeding and the nature of a deposition
proceeding?
A: I am.
Q: The court
reporter to your right is going to be taking down everything that is said on
the record today and is going to be preparing a transcript of today's
proceedings. And you're going to have an opportunity to review that transcript
and to make any changes that you consider to be necessary in order to make the
transcript accurate.
However, it's
important that you give your best testimony today because either Mr. DuBay or
any other attorney in the case could comment upon any changes that you make. So
it's important that you do your best to give your most accurate testimony
today?
A: I understand.
Q: Now, are you
under medication today that has any effect upon your ability to recall or
explain?
A: No.
Q: What is your
date of birth?
A: July 29, 1930.
Q: And where do
you reside? What town --- what is the town in which you reside?
A: Wyncote,
Pennsylvania.
Q: And what is
your educational background?
A: High school.
Two years of college.
Q: And did you
enter the publishing business at some point?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you
enter the publishing business?
A: Approximately
1956 or '57.
Q: And with whom
did you begin your work in the
publishing
business?
A: With whom?
Q: Yeah, with
whom.
A: I didn't begin
it with anyone. I started the
company myself.
Q: And what company
did you start?
A: It was---- it
was Warren Publishing Company. I don't remember the name that I originally
started as. It was too long ago. Maybe it was Warren Publishing Company, but I
don't remember.
Q: All right.
Did there come a
time when you did form Warren Publishing Company?
A: Yes.
Q: And what
publications were published by Warren Publishing Company?
A: Many of them.
First one was Famous Monsters of Filmland.
Q: And after that,
what other publications were published by Warren Publishing Company?
A: Do you want me
to list them all? There were many of them.
Q: Well, list the
principle ones, if you could. A: Well, there was Famous Monsters of Filmland. There was Creepy, Eerie, Vampirella, Monster World, Spacemen, The
Rook, other one shots. Probably 20 or more of them.
Q: And just for
the record, what is a one shot, just so we have that in the record?
A: I don't
remember the titles, but we had the licenses to motion pictures, Star Wars type
motion pictures. We had the license to Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Q: So a one shot
that would be an example of a magazine that would appear with a particular
title on only one occasion?
A: Yes. It had a
life of one issue.
Q: All right.
And I'd like to
show you a document that --- a certificate of dissolution relating to Warren Publishing
Company. We'll mark it as Number 1.
Attorney Cox: Let
me see if I can find another copy.
Do you have a copy
of that, Counsel? I mean, Mr. DuBay.
Mr. Dubay: I do.
By Attorney Cox: That
document from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appears to indicate that Warren
--- that a Pennsylvania company called Warren Publishing Company was dissolved
in 1974.
Does that --- do
you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: Why was Warren
Publishing Company dissolved in 1974?
A: We moved to New
York City and we established ourselves in New York City.
Q: And at that
time of the dissolution of Warren Publishing Company, what happened to the
property that was owned by Warren Publishing Company?
Do you recall?
A: It was either
signed over to me personally or to the new company. I don't remember which.
Q: All right.
Attorney Cox: Exhibit
2 is a document from the State of New York, Department of State, regarding a
certificate of incorporation for a Warren Communications Corp.
Mr. Dubay: Do you
have a copy of that for me?
Attorney Cox: I do
have that, yes. In fact, I also have a copy of Exhibit 1 for you.
Mr. Dubay: It
appears that Exhibit 1 is less than complete. Exhibit 1 is missing page 672,
and that might help Mr. Warren recollect what took place with
the distributive
assets, if you'd like to have that clarified.
Attorney Cox: No.
No, I think this document is complete. There's a separate that --- it's a
matter of documentary record what happened with the distributive
assets. That's not
going to be a dispute.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. But
you're saying this is a separate document. It appears to be a document that
precedes this, one and the same, discussing the dissolution.
This seems to be
the certificate that ratifies this express dissolution admissions.
Attorney Cox: No, this
is a certificate of incorporation of Warren Communications.
Mr. Dubay: No,
what I'm saying is that Exhibit 1, you have you have marked as the certificate
of dissolution, and the articles of dissolution which precede that do not
appear to be included in the certificate of dissolution.
Attorney Cox: This
is a separate company. Exhibit 2 is a separate company.
Mr. Dubay: No, I'm
referring to Exhibit 1, Mr. Cox. Warren Publishing Company.
Attorney Cox: That's
fine. You can correct the record whatever way you wish.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. I
just wanted to see if you wanted the opportunity.
By Attorney Cox: Does
Exhibit 2 refresh your memory as to the fact that you incorporated Warren
Communications Corp., in the state of New York?
A: I'm sorry. I
didn't hear that.
Q: Mr. Warren, did
you incorporate Warren Communications Corp., in the state of New York in 1972?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was
your reason for incorporating Warren Communications Corp?
A: Because I had
offices in New York and I lived in New York.
Q: And what functions
did Warren Communications Corp., undertake after 1972, after you incorporated
it?
A: Publishing.
Q: And did it take
over the publication of the titles that had previously been published by Warren
Publishing Corp., the Pennsylvania company?
A: It did.
Q: Now, later on,
there was a company that was formed in 1998 called Warren Publishing Company.
Do you remember
that? It was formed in New York?
A: 1998?
Q: 1998.
A: No, I don't
remember.
Q: Let me show you
Exhibit 3, which is a document from the state of New York, Department of
Corporations. Do you recall that in 1998, you ---?
A: I must have
because this is the address I was living in at that time. But I didn't remember
when you asked me the first time.
Q: Okay. There is
also a ---.
Attorney Cox: So
let's make Exhibits 2 and 3, let's give those to the court reporter to be
marked.
I'd like to mark
as Exhibit 4 a document from the Department of State and the state of New York
that includes a certificate of merger of Warren Communications Corp and Warren
Publishing Co., into Warren Communications Corp., as of 1972.
A: And what was
the question?
By Attorney Cox: I'm
just handing it to you now.
Do you recognize
this certificate of merger? Does it bring any --- does it refresh your memory
at all about the fact that Warren Communications Corp., and Warren Publishing
Co., were merged into the New York Corporation Warren Communications Corp?
A: I don't
recognize the certificate, but I assume that that was done as part of our
moving from Pennsylvania to New York.
Q: Okay.
A: And I see it
was signed by me and by someone who worked for me.
Q: This case is
brought by an individual named Benjamin DuBay. Before you learned of this
lawsuit, had you known anything about Benjamin Dubay?
A: No.
Q: Mr. DuBay, the
Plaintiff, is the nephew of an individual named William DuBay.
Are you familiar
with William DuBay?
A: I am.
Q: And when did
you first come in contact with William DuBay, to the best of your recollection?
A: I don't
remember the exact date. It was probably in the 1970s. But, again, I don't
remember the exact date.
Q: And in what
context did you meet William DuBay?
A: I don't
remember what context I met him, but I knew of him as being active in the
comics industry and I hired him as an editor for my company.
Q: And your
company published comics. Correct?
A: It did.
Q: And in what
capacity did you hire Mr. Dubay?
A: As editor for,
as I recall, Creepy, Eerie, and Vampirella.
Q: And was he ---
did you have an employment contract with him in writing?
A: I don't believe
so.
Q: Did you --- was
he an employee of your company?
A: He was.
Q: And did he
receive a monthly paycheck?
A: He did. I don't
recall if it was weekly or monthly, but he received a paycheck.
Q: And to whom did
he report?
A: To me directly.
Q: And what were
his responsibilities?
A: Editing the
magazines that I named before, and production generally of other magazines, and
supervision of the people who worked under him.
Q: Did his
employment responsibilities include sometimes writing or drawing material that
appeared in the magazines?
A: Yes.
Q: And did there
come a time where Mr. DuBay stopped being an employee?
A: Yes.
Q: When was that?
A: Again, I don't
recall the exact date.
Q: If you don't
recall the exact date, that's fine.
Was there a
particular occasion that you recall upon which Mr. DuBay stopped being an
employee at Warren Publishing?
A: I don't
remember a particular occasion, no.
Q: And when I say
that he was an employee of the company, what company was he employed by? Was it
Warren Communications or Warren Publishing or both?
A: I don't --- I
don't remember if there was --- if we defined it that way at the time. I don't
know what was printed on the paycheck that he got. I don't
recall.
Q: Do you recall
that the bank account on which the check was drawn was in the name of Warren Communications
Corp?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: What individual
employed by you was the --- the person who was in charge of issuing paychecks?
A: Daniel Tunick.
Q: And was he the
comptroller of the company?
A: He was.
Q: And was Mr.
Tunick aware of Warren Communications Corp., and its assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know if
Mr. Tunick is still alive?
A: He is dead.
Attorney Cox: I'd
like to mark as Exhibit 5 the title page from Eerie number 82, which is dated March of 1977.
Mr. Dubay: Thank
you.
By Attorney Cox: Do
you recognize Exhibit 5? Do you recognize this exhibit?
A: Yes.
Q: And just so
that I have an understanding of the different --- the different people who may
have been involved in creating this, there's a reference here to
senior editor
Louise Jones?
A: Yes.
Q: Was she
somebody who was employed by your company?
A: She was, yes.
Q: And was she in
a position that was senior to that of Mr. DuBay or did she report to Mr. DuBay?
A: No. She
reported to Mr. DuBay.
Q: What was the
function?
A: Excuse me, I'm
sorry. That's wrong. At that point, Bill DuBay had left the company and she
replaced him as editor.
Q: Well, Bill
DuBay had left the company at that point?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Did you say
Bill DuBay had left the company?
A: I say that
because I see he's listed here as consulting editor. And I would --- if he's
listed as consulting editor, that means he's no longer editor. So he had
probably left the company, and she replaced him, yes, because I remember she
took over his job. I appointed her as head of our editor staff.
Q: I see. So as of
the date of Eerie Number 82, Mr. Bill
DuBay was not currently an employee ---
A: That's.
Q: --- of your
company?
A: That's correct.
Q: And how was he
compensated for his work?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: Did you ever
have any kind of written contract with Mr. DuBay regarding The Rook?
A: I don't believe
so.
Q: Now, there's a
reference here to the cover being by Luis Bermejo and Bill DuBay?
A: A reference to
what?
Q: The cover. The
credit for the cover ---
A: Oh, yes. I see.
Q: --- was Luis
Bermejo and Bill DuBay?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the --- who
is Luis Bermejo?
A: I think --- I
think he was an artist, but I'm not sure.
Q: Was he an
employee of your company?
A: No. He was not
an employee. I believe he was freelance.
Q: And who was it
that paid for the creation of the contents edition number 82?
A: The publishing
company.
Q: So your
company?
A: My company,
yes.
Q: And so it was
done at your --- was it done at your instance and expense?
A: It was.
Q: Now, there's a
copyright notice here that says it was copyrighted 1977 by Warren Publishing
Co.
Do you see that
there? It's in a block of text below the names?
Mr. Dubay: It's
the fourth line under second-class.
A: Can you point
that out?
Mr. Dubay: I will.
It says copyrighted 1977 by Warren Publishing Co.
A: Yes. Yes, I see
it.
By Attorney Cox: Now,
as of 1977, the Pennsylvania corporation, Warren Publishing Co., had been
dissolved?
A: Yes.
Q: But you had a
company called Warren Communications Co.
Do you have any
understanding as to why the copyright notice stated Warren Publishing Co.,
instead of Warren Communications Co.?
A: I don't
remember why we did this. No.
Q: All right.
But as of 1977,
was --- what was Warren Publishing Co.? Was it a division of Warren
Communications or was it ---?
A: It was a
division of Warren Communications Corp., as I recall.
Attorney Cox: I'd
like to show you a --- and mark as Exhibit 6 a title page from a 1979
publication called Warren Presents The Rook.
Now, do you recall
the fact that Warren published a publication called Warren Presents The Rook?
A: Yes.
Q: And how many of
those were published by your company, to the best of your knowledge?
A: I don't
remember exactly. I think there were about four issues, but I'm not sure exactly
how many.
Q: Now, there's an
indication here that the editor of this issue was W.B. DuBay.
Was that a
reference to William DuBay?
A: It is.
Q: And the fact
that he's listed as an editor, does that tell you that as of the time of that
publication, he was an employee of your company?
A: It appears that
way, yes.
Q: So was that a
way in which you would distinguish between someone who was an employee of your
company and someone who was not an employee?
A: Yes.
Q: And you would
make that distinction by saying that an editor was an employee, but a
consulting editor was not?
A: If he's listed
as editor, I believe that he was an employee.
Q: And do you have
any recollection of how it came about that he went between being not an
employee and an employee in that time frame of 1977 to 1979?
A: No, I don't. I
don't have any recollection of why that happened.
Q: I'd like to
show you a document. We'll call it Exhibit 7. It is an enlargement of a portion
of Exhibit 6, which I thought ---.
The reason I
enlarged it was that it makes the print bigger for the copyright notice, which
can be sometimes difficult to read.
This copyright
notice states that the entire contents copyrighted by Warren Publishing Co.,
all rights reserved. And then it later states in the next paragraph, Warren Presents is published quarterly
at the subscription price of $8 per year, by Warren Publishing Co., a division
of Warren Communication Corporation.
Do you know if you
had any role in determining how Warren Publishing Co., was described in the
copyright section of this --- of this document?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: Who was it who
had the responsibility for preparing the text of the copyright notices that
would appear in each issue?
A: Daniel Tunick.
Q: And was Daniel
Tunick the person who was in charge of registering the works for copyright?
A: Yes, he did
that with every issue. He sent the copyright notice to Washington with our fee
with every issue we published of every magazine we published.
Q: Now, were you
involved in the creative discussions that took place pertaining to The Rook?
A: I must have
been because I was involved with most of the projects that we published.
Q: Do you recall
anything about those creative discussions?
A: Nothing in
particular stands out.
Q: In some of the
documents that I've seen, there's a reference to an individual named Howard
Peretz. Do you recall Mr. Howard Peretz having any involvement at all in
connection with The Rook?
A: None
whatsoever. That name is not familiar to me at all.
Q: Do you recall
that there was any interest at that time in creating a character who would be a
cowboy or who would be set in the old west? Do you recall that
that was an
interest of yours at that time?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall
that you requested bill DuBay to create a character who would have certain
attributes that became The Rook?
A: I don't
remember doing that.
Attorney Cox: The
next exhibit is going to be a copyright application. It's going to be marked Exhibit
8.
Mr. Dubay: Thank
you.
Attorney Cox: Sure.
By Attorney Cox: Showing
you Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 is a copyright application that is signed by --- it
appears that it's signed by Daniel Tunick on the second page?
A: I see it.
Q: Do you
recognize his signature?
A: I do.
Q: And it is ---
the copyright claimant is listed as Warren Publishing Company.
Was --- at that
time, the Pennsylvania corporation Warren Publishing Company had been
dissolved.
Who was making
this copyright --- who was Warren Publishing Company as set forth in this
Exhibit 8?
A: I was Warren
Publishing Company.
Q: You personally?
A: Yes, I
personally and individually. I had no partners, no stockholders.
Q: So this
registration was made on behalf of you as an individual?
A: It was.
Q: And, again, why
was it that the copyright claimant was listed as Warren Publishing Company
rather than James Warren?
A: We did not
copyright our magazines in my name, James Warren. We copyrighted them in the
name of the company, as I recall.
Q: And did you
form a sole proprietorship called Warren Publishing Company?
A: No.
Q: It was an
informal --- it was an informal sole proprietorship?
A: It was a
corporation, Warren Publishing Company. Excuse me. It was a --- the name,
Warren Publishing Company, was originally, as I say, from Pennsylvania.
But I don't recall
any proprietorship that I did, no.
Q: Okay. So after
the Pennsylvania corporation was dissolved, was --- did you become Warren
Publication --- Publishing Company personally?
A: I don't --- I
don't understand the legality of that. There was only one person involved with
Warren Publishing and Warren Communications, and it was me.
Q: All right. So
did you distinguish between --- was there a reason why it wasn't Warren
Communications Company as the claimant?
A: I don't
remember the reason why.
Q: But it was your
intention that Warren Communications Company should not be the claimant?
Mr. Dubay: That's
leading. I object.
A: I don't
remember why we did this at the time I think it was just a matter of queen yens
continuity.
Mr. Dubay: I
object to the question, leading.
A: I don't
remember why we did this at the time. I think it was just a matter of
convenience and continuity.
Mr. Dubay: I
object to the question.
By Attorney Cox: I
have to re-ask the question just so we have a record.
What was the
reason why Warren Publishing Company was used as the copyright claimant rather
than Warren Communications Corp.?
A: I don't
remember the reason why. It was discussed during our board meetings, but I
don't remember why.
Q: And who was on
the board?
A: I had four
people, four or five people on my board. I had the president of our printing
company. I had my attorney, my accountant, and one other person, who I forgot.
Q: Was it Richard
Conway?
A: No.
Q: Okay.
A: He was not on
the board.
Q: And to the best
of your recollection, what was the substance of --- and was this a board
meeting of Warren communications Corp.?
A: Well, we held
our board meeting --- we held our board meetings during the year. Yes, three or
four of them.
Q: And what was
the substance of the discussion at the board of Warren Communications Corp., on
this issue of who would be the copyright claimant on the publications?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: But you do
recall it was discussed?
A: I do remember
we discussed it, but I don't remember why we decided to do it this way.
Attorney Cox: Do
you have a copy of this document?
Mr. Dubay: I have
a certified copy of the document directly from the copyright office, if you'd
like to see it.
Attorney Cox: Yeah.
Let's take a short break.
By Attorney Cox: Q:
Mr. Warren, we're back on the record now. And I wanted --- that causes me to
want to mention to you that any time that you feel tired or uncomfortable or hungry
or anything like that, you can ask for a break. This is not an endurance
contest. And so at any time that you feel you need a break or want a break, you
can just ask for one and you're entitled to one.
A: Thank you.
Q: And the other
--- the next thing I wanted to mention, that while we were off the record, Ben
DuBay handed to me an original document that he obtained from the copyright
office. It's a certificate of recordation for a document dated October 31,
1986. And I wanted to hand that document to you and ask you to look at the
third page of --- and it's been marked as Exhibit 9.
Please take a look
at the third page of Exhibit 9.
A: Yes, I see it.
Q: Now, it's a
document dated October 31, 1986, and it's on Warren Publishing Co., letterhead.
As of 1986, was Warren Publishing Co., in existence?
A: No.
Q: When did Warren
Publishing Company cease to be in existence?
A: In 1982.
Q: And what was it
that brought about the end of Warren Publishing Company in 1982?
A: Bankruptcy.
Q: And so this
document in 1986, yours --- there's an indication here at the bottom of James
Warren signing this document.
Is --- is that
your signature at the bottom of that page?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: And why do you
--- why do you say that?
A: Well, because I
know what my signature looks like, and this is an obvious forgery.
Q: And ---?
A: A bad forgery.
Q: And then the
reference in this document to J.W., colon, E-A, now, do you know, was that
typically put on documents that were created while Warren Publishing
Company was in
existence?
A: Yes. When I
dictated a letter, I dictated it to my secretary, Elizabeth Alamar. And this is
how it appears, EA, Elizabeth Alamar.
Q: Well, when was
the last time that you saw Elizabeth Alamar?
A: I hadn't seen
or spoken to her since 1982.
Q: So is there any
way Elizabeth Alamar could have typed this document in 1986?
A: No possible way
because the stationery didn't even exist then.
Q: Well, someone
--- someone who was leaving Warren Publishing Company could have taken some
blank stationery?
A: Yes, I'm sure
they did. This is one of our stationery that we used for many years, which we
stopped using in 1982 because the company didn't exist at that time in 1982 at
that office at that address.
Q: When did you
first learn that there was this October 31, 1986 document?
Did you learn of
it first this year or did you learn of it earlier than that?
A: This document
crossed my desk years ago. It surfaced during some legal proceeding that we
had. And as soon as I saw it, I realized it was a forgery.
Q: Do you know who
caused this document to be recorded in the copyright office?
A: I do not.
Certainly not me.
Attorney Cox: Let's
have that document handed to the court reporter.
I'd like to have
marked as Exhibit 10 a document that I received by e-mail, I believe, yesterday.
It might have been late the day before, but on or about yesterday.
I'm showing you
Exhibit 10. This is a document that I received in response to a subpoena to a
woman named Vanessa Hart. I ask you to look at the second page of that exhibit?
Mr. Dubay: I have
to make an objection because this is not the document that you received. This
document has been altered from the document that you received. The document
that you received showed --- clearly showed a cut-and-paste mark around the
date, October 29, 1982, as you're aware. This has clearly been altered since.
Attorney Cox: Well,
no. Actually, it's the copying process.
Mr. Dubay: Oh, is
that correct?
Attorney Cox: That's
it. I tried to copy it correctly. And, in fact, you're completely correct. Let
me just state for the record that the copy that I received was in a format.
It's a digital format called JPG. And it showed that the date was a
cut and paste of
October 29, 1982, over another document. And so I --- I was going to get to
that.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. I
apologize.
Attorney Cox: Sure.
But you agree with me that there was a cut and paste for the date?
Mr. Dubay: I agree
that it's apparent.
Attorney Cox: Yes.
By Attorney Cox: Q:
So looking at that document, do you have any --- that appears to be a photocopy
of Exhibit 9 with a new date attached to it.
Do you see that?
A: Yes, I see it.
Q: And is that
your signature at the bottom of that page?
A: Absolutely not.
I never wrote this letter. I would have never written this letter, nor did I
sign this. This is an obvious forgery. Again, it looks like it was forged by
the same person.
Q: And you state
you would have never written such a letter?
A: Never.
Q: Why do you say
that?
A: Well, because I
did not assign or give the property to anyone in my company, let alone Bill
DuBay.
Q: Did you have
any conversations with Bill DuBay in or about 1986? Were you in touch with him?
A: Absolutely not.
Excuse me. I might have been in touch with him. In 1986, you say?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, I was in
touch with him about that time over the phone when I called him and I asked him
for some documents that he had in his file that I needed. And he sent them to
me. And we did this over the phone. I didn't --- he was in California at the
time. I was here on the east coast.
We spoke on the
phone, he sent them to me, and I thanked him. And that was my contact with him.
But we never
discussed The Rook or anything else, and
I never, never dictated this letter or even thought of dictating a letter like
this.
There is no
question this is a forgery.
Mr. Dubay: Is this
Exhibit 9?
Attorney Cox: This
is Exhibit 10.
Mr. Dubay: Thank
you.
By Attorney Cox: Did
Mr. DuBay ever approach you and ask you to give him the rights to The Rook?
A: No.
Q: Now, in the
time after --- just for historical purposes, I guess, or to lay a foundation,
what was it that caused the bankruptcy of Warren Communications
Corp., in 1982?
What was the precipitating factor, if you recall?
A: I was not there
to lead the company. I was not there to run the company.
Q: And what was
going on with you at that time?
A: Pardon me?
Q: What was it
that caused you not to be there to lead the company?
A: Sickness.
Q: What sickness
did you have at the time?
A: Depression.
Q: And during what
years did --- were you afflicted with this depression?
A: What year?
Q: What years?
Year or years?
A: 1981, '82,
around that time.
Q: And for how
long did that condition persist?
A: A long time.
Q: Was there any
event that you recall that kind of helped to cure you or snapped you out of it?
Was there anything that happened?
A: Nothing snapped
me out of it. Time cured me, but it took a long time.
Q: And about when
did you become cured?
A: Don't recall
the exact date. It's a gradual thing.
Q: By the late
1990s, you had become cured?
A: Oh, yes.
Mr. Dubay: That's
leading.
By Attorney Cox: Well,
what is your best estimate as to the time frame within which you became cured?
A: Early '90s.
Q: Now, did
William DuBay participate in the bankruptcy proceedings?
A: Did I
participate?
Q: Did William
DuBay participate in the bankruptcy proceedings?
A: I believe he did.
I believe he appeared in front of the judge, but I don't know the details of
that.
Q: Did you learn
about it through your attorney?
A: Did I learn
about?
Q: How did you
learn about him appearing before the bankruptcy judge?
A: I guess it was
my attorney who told me about it.
Q: So far as
you're aware, did any legal --- was there any effect that resulted from William
DuBay participating in the bankruptcy proceeding?
A: I don't know of
any.
Attorney Cox: I'd
like to mark --- if you'd hand me Exhibit 10. I'd like to mark as Exhibit 11 a
document that I received recently from Ben DuBay. And, again,
just for the
record, Ben, is this a document that you received from Vanessa or is this a
document that you had in your files?
Mr. Dubay: I
believe we received it at the same time. At least that's what I requested of
her. So she sent two separate e-mails, I believe one to you and one to me. And
I forwarded it to you and you responded, I believe, that you had received it.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
I think that I might have misspoken because I don't think she sent me this
document, but you then forwarded it to me.
Mr. Dubay: Oh,
okay.
Attorney Cox: It
just --- anyway, we have it before us.
Mr. Dubay: The
intention to was to provide it to you according to a subpoena that you
requested.
Attorney Cox: That's
great. I appreciate that.
By Attorney Cox: I'm
showing you Exhibit 11. It is a document dated September 27, 1976.
Do you recognize
Exhibit 11 as a document that was dictated by you?
And take the time
to read it please.
WITNESS COMPLIES
A: I never wrote
this letter.
By Attorney Cox: And
what is it that causes you to say that?
A: I never heard
of Howard Perez or Package Play Development. And I never gave this
participation to Bill, and I never heard of this company. And I never --- I'm
seeing this for the first time.
Q: Is that your
signature on the second page?
A: No, of course
not. Same kind of forgery.
Q: Did you have
any kind of discussion with Bill DuBay about him participating in future
benefits from The Rook?
A: Yes.
Q: Tell me about
those.
A: When Rook was
first created and when I agreed to publish it, I told him verbally that if we
get any offers for a movies or television or heavy weight
subsidiary rights,
money coming in, that he would get a piece of it.
I never defined
how much. I never specified where it would come from. I just said that if it
happens, you will get a piece of it. And that was the extent of
it.
Q: Was it your
state of mind in this time frame in which The
Rook was created that --- let me --- let me ask it in a way that won't draw
a leading objection.
Who is it that you
understood was the owner of The Rook
and all rights in 1977?
A: My company was
the owner. Exclusively.
Q: And did you
ever sign any document that conveyed any rights in The Rook to William DuBay?
A: No.
Q: There has been
some evidence that's come to light that in or about 1994, William DuBay entered
into an agreement with Harris Publications by which he made certain licenses
regarding The Rook to Harris Publications.
Do you have any
knowledge of any such licenses?
A: None
whatsoever.
Q: Were you aware
that Harris Publications published The
Rook at any time?
A: I was not
aware.
Q: Did you have
--- did you stay in touch with William DuBay after that time frame that you
described earlier in which you had telephone conversations with
him regarding some
documents?
A: No, I was not
in touch with him. The last contact I had with him was a telephone message on
my phone saying that he was on his way to Europe for a vacation of some sort,
and that he called to say hello.
And that was the
extent of the message. And I did not speak with him personally and I did not
follow up on the phone call.
That's the last
contact I had with him.
Mr. Dubay: Are you
going to enter that as an exhibit?
Attorney Cox: It's
hearsay to this witness. This witness hasn't seen it. I don't feel I need to do
that.
Mr. Dubay: That's
fine.
Attorney Cox: Let's
take a brief break. I may be done with the witness.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Attorney Cox: This
concludes my Direct Examination of the witness, Mr. DuBay.
Mr. Dubay: Is it
okay if I mark it on here or would you like the stickers? I'm going to mark
this as Exhibit 12.
Examination By Mr.
Dubay: Mr. Warren, I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 12.
If you flip to page
two, this appears to be the articles of dissolution of the corporation Warren Publishing
Company.
Is it true that
the legal entity known as Warren Publishing Company was dissolved on ---?
Attorney Cox: Excuse
me. Just before you start.
Mr. Dubay: Of course.
Attorney Cox: Showing
a witness a document that you've marked exposes you to an objection to its use
at trial.
Just I wanted to
let you know that there's a problem with doing it in this fashion.
Mr. Dubay: With
the highlighting?
Attorney Cox: With
the highlighting, yeah.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. We'll
introduce it in another form, but I appreciate that.
Attorney Cox: Thank
you.
By Mr. Dubay: Do
you recognize the signature as your signature of James Warren?
A: Do I recognize
it?
Q: Do you
recognize it, Mr. Warren?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you
recognize the signature on this page?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.
Is it true in item
five of this document that all remaining property and assets ---?
A: I don't have
the document in front of me.
Q: This is the
document.
Attorney Cox: It's
page two of the document.
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Same page.
A: Is it true that
item five ---?
Q: Is it true that
item five of this document, all remaining property and assets of the
corporation have been distributed amongst its shareholders in accordance
with their respective
rights and interests?
A: Well, if I
signed it back in 1974, then it must have been true.
Q: Okay.
So that is an
affirmative answer of yes?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Were you ---?
Attorney Cox: The
witness gets to answer. Not you.
Mr. Dubay: I
understand.
Were you the
primary shareholder of Warren Publishing Company ---?
A: The only
shareholder.
Q: Okay.
Is it true that
all assets, including copyright registrations, were assigned to you, James
Warren?
A: I believe so.
Q: Okay.
A: I'm not sure
whether they were assigned to --- I think they were to me, yes. Of course.
By Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Exhibit 13 is a Warren companion cover.
Do you recognize
page two as a Warren companion cover?
A: I recognize it.
Q: Okay.
Can you tell me
what the Warren companion book was about?
A: About Warren
Publishing Company.
Q: Okay.
Is it true that
it's definitive compendium to the great comics of Warren Publishing, as
described on the cover?
Attorney Cox: Objection,
foundation.
A: That's what it
says, yes.
Mr. Dubay: Can you
be more specific?
Attorney Cox: Yes.
I mean, there's no foundation that this witness knows all of the contents of
the work and can state that it's the definitive.
Certainly, the
people who published this stated that it was definitive.
Mr. Dubay: Right.
Attorney Cox: It
wasn't even clear from your question whether you were asking the witness is
that what's stated on the cover or does he consider it to be
definitive.
Mr. Dubay: I
understand.
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Is that's what's stated on the cover, the definitive compendium to the great
comics of Warren Publishing Company?
A: I don't know if
you're going to hold me to this exactly. I don't know if it contains everything
that we did. They have left out a few things.
Q: But is that
what it states on the cover?
A: That's what it
says.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: If you
could turn that over to the reporter, please.
Exhibit Number 14
is the Warren companion title page. If you don't mind flipping to page two of
the title page, Mr. Warren.
Does it identify
yourself, James Warren, as the consultant to this book?
A: As a
consultant, you say?
Q: Yes, sir. Are
you the consultant of this book, the Warren Companion?
A: What is your
definition of consultant?
Q: Is it described
on the title page?
A: Yes, I know. Certainly
I was interviewed and I answered questions and I contributed my knowledge to
it, yes. If you call that consultancy, yes.
Q: Okay.
But it is
described on the title page, James Warren as consultant.
Correct?
A: Yes, that's
what it says.
Q: Okay.
Do you recall
signing?
A: Do I recover
what?
Q: Do you recall
signing the Warren companion unlimited edition print?
A: Do I recover?
Q: Do you recall
signing?
A: Signing?
Q: Signing the
Warren companion, an unlimited edition print?
Would it help you
if I furnished you the original book and your original signature?
A: I don't
understand what you're saying.
Q: Okay.
A: Was there an
additional edition, a special copy that I signed?
Q: That's what I'm
asking.
A: I don't
remember. Maybe I did.
Q: Okay. Can I
furnish you a copy of the original book?
Attorney Cox: You
can show him.
By Mr. Dubay: Is
that okay?
A: Oh, yes. I
remember now.
Q: Mr. Warren ---
A: Yes, yes.
Q: --- is that
your signature?
Attorney Cox: Thank
you.
Mr. Dubay: Would
you like to review this?
Attorney Cox: It's
number 530 of 1,000. Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: You're
welcome.
I'll follow with
this exhibit. You can hand that back to the reporter. Thank you.
Next exhibit will
be Warren Companion Page 126, Exhibit Number 15.
Is it true that
Marv Wolfman ascribes Stephen King as having sent in a number of scripts to
Warren Publishing?
Attorney Cox: Are
you asking him if those words appear on the page?
Mr. Dubay: I'm
asking him if that is true that he stated that, and those comments exist in
this document.
A: I'm sorry. What
was your question?
By Mr. Dubay: The
question is, is it true that Marv Wolfman describes Stephen King as having sent
in a number of scripts to Warren Publishing?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
No proper foundation that this witness had knowledge.
Mr. Dubay: This
witness has acknowledged that he was a consultant on this book.
Attorney Cox: Correct.
By Mr. Dubay: Do
you have knowledge of this interview?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: You do? You
have knowledge of this interview? Were you aware this interview was recorded by
Jon B. Cooke?
A: Was I aware
that it was recorded?
Q: Recorded.
A: No, I wasn't
aware that it was recorded or spoken without a recorder or not. I'm don't know
how it was done.
Q: Okay. But you
were ---?
A: I wasn't
present.
Q: I understand.
Attorney Cox: You
were not present? Could you read the answer back?
PREVIOUS ANSWER
READ BACK
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
You were not present during the interview?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: You were not
present during this interview. Is that correct?
A: I don't
remember whether I was or not.
Q: Okay.
Did Mr. Wolfman
ever speak with you about Stephen King submitting scripts to Warren Publishing
Company?
A: Yeah, he did.
Q: Do you ---?
A: I think he said
when he was --- he was --- Marv was editor for about two weeks. I hired him and
then two weeks later, Marvel hired him away from me.
And during that
period, I think he did say something about Stephen King submitting something.
Q: Okay.
A: But I don't
remember the details.
Q: You had
indicated that it was Marvel as the employee or the editor.
A: I'm sorry.
You're talking too fast for me.
Q: Did you mean
Marv Wolfman was an editor for two Weeks at Warren Publishing Company?
A: I believe he
was, yes.
Q: Okay. So a
short time? Okay.
A: I think he was,
yes.
Q: All right.
Did he say
anything to you about what the disposition of those scripts were? What happened
to them?
A: No.
Q: Okay.
A: If he did, I
don't remember.
Q: Do you recall
who succeeded Marv Wolfman as editor of Creepy,
Eerie, and Vampirella? Was that person Bill DuBay?
A: Probably was,
yes. It probably was, but I'm not sure.
Q: Okay. If it
were William DuBay, would he have received those scripts from Stephen King?
Would they have been sent to him?
A: No, this was
done before and it wasn't done afterwards. Marv Wolfman said that the scripts
came in before Bill DuBay came there. Not afterwards.
Q: Okay. But you
were aware that he sent in the scripts.
That's okay. I
appreciate that. Thank you very much for your answer.
Mr. Dubay: If I
could hand that to the court reporter, please. Thank you.
The next exhibit
is Warren companion page 135, Exhibit Number 16.
Do you recognize
above Famous Monsters Magazine, there's
a question.
A: What is your
question?
Q: I just wanted
to point it to you so you could read it along.
A: Well, I can read
it first.
Q: Yes, sir.
A: When it says I
gave Bill ownership rights ---.
Q: Let me first
establish foundation.
Do you recall this
interview?
A: Yeah. I recall
the interview, yes.
Q: Okay. And then
you recalled the question that Mr. Cooke asked you?
A: I recall the
interview, yes.
Q: Okay.
Was the question
in the later '70s and early '80s, did they produce The Rook and The Goblin, were you looking ---?
A: Hold on. You're
talking too fast for me.
Q: Yes, sir.
Was the question
in the late '70s and early '80s, DuBay produced The Rook and The Goblin. Were you looking to get into the superhero
market?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was
your answer?
A: The answer that
is printed below that was my answer.
Q: Is your answer
Bill was, and I went along with it. I liked Bill and wanted to do something for
him. My way of doing it was to take what he was really
enthusiastic about
and have passion for, and publish it. I gave Bill ownership rights?
A: Correct.
Q: Okay.
A: But that's not
the complete answer. The ownership rights I'm referring to is the fact that
when I told him that if there was any subsidiary income from movies or
television, he would get a piece of it.
Q: Okay.
A: That was my
definition of ownership rights.
Q: Okay. But Bill
did retain ownership rights, at least in part?
A: He didn't
retain anything because we never got any offers to retain.
Q: Okay.
But when you say I
gave Bill ownership rights, had there been any other offers, Bill would have
received benefit of that?
A: No. He would
have received what I decided to give him had we received any big money from
movies or television.
Q: But he would
have received a portion of that? He would have received some proceeds from
that? Is that what you're saying?
A: He would have
received a portion of any movie or television rights that we might have gotten,
had we had any offers.
Q: Okay.
So you're
agreement with Bill was that he would receive --- would have received a portion
of any proceeds outside of publishing. Correct?
A: Correct. To be
decided by me. But there was nothing specific.
Mr. Dubay: Can I
have that entered into ---?
The next document
is Warren companion page 139, Exhibit 17.
A: Yes, I read it.
By Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Is it true that
Mr. DuBay answered the question what did you find particularly taxing? In part,
he answered, no matter where the art came from though, from Hollywood to
Barcelona, we had to make all the changes and corrections and paste in all the
hand lettered balloons and captions in-house. That's labor intensive in itself,
but I often create more work for myself by seeing a fresh or missed angle in a
story during the final editing process.
Would you consider
that to be an accurate description by Bill?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
There were two questions.
Mr. Dubay: There
was.
Attorney Cox: And
one of them, there were no proper foundation. So I'd ask you to just ask one
question and go from there.
Mr. Dubay: Specifically
lack of foundation because ---.
By Mr. Dubay Mr.
Warren, were you aware of this interview by between Jon and William?
A: No.
Q: You were not
aware of it? Okay.
A: No.
Q: Do you recall
what Mr. DuBay's responsibilities were at Warren Publishing Company as editor?
A: He had a lot of
responsibility. He had editorship responsibilities. He bought stories. He
supervised production work. What else do you want to know?
Q: Would he have
to make changes to artwork?
A: Sometimes.
Q: Okay.
Would he rewrite
scripts?
A: He would edit
scripts sometimes. If you call editing rewriting, yes. There were times when he
would change scripts.
Q: Okay. Would you
consider sometimes or at times that he heavily edited scripts?
A: I wasn't there
when it happened, so I couldn't say heavily or lightly.
Q: Fair.
Mr. Dubay: Warren
companion page 140, Exhibit 18.
Attorney Cox: Unfortunately,
it's not very legible on my copy. But perhaps the witness can read it. I just wanted
to mention.
By Mr. Dubay: Can
you make that out?
A: What are you
asking me?
Q: I'm curious if
you can read this portion before I ask you a question that's relevant?
A: I see his
answer that starts with I think most knew. Is that what you're referring to?
Q: Exactly.
A: What was your
question?
Q: Mr. DuBay
describes that there were few scripts that got through intact.
As a matter of
fact, there was only one script or one writer whose scripts I pretty much leave
alone, Jim Stenstrum.
To your
recollection, is that accurate?
A: Do I what?
Q: To your
recollection, was that accurate?
Attorney Cox: Objection,
foundation.
A: I wasn't
present. I have no idea.
Q: Mr. Warren, when
Marvel Comics entered the black and white comics magazine field, did you feel
that Marvel was encroaching on your market?
A: Depended upon
what comics they were entering. I don't know which comics you're talking about.
Q: Specifically
the horror black and white magazine?
A: Yes, I felt
that way.
Q: You felt that
they were encroaching. Did you feel that Marvel was copying the look of Warren
Publishing Company's magazines?
A: I don't
remember how I felt at the time.
Q: Do you recall
if you felt that they were copying the content of your magazines?
A: I don't
remember how I felt. I'd have to see what you're comparing them with.
Q: Okay. Is this
description by Mr. DuBay accurate when he writes, after that issue, Jim didn't
want me to leave, so he kept my head on the masthead as consultant editor,
giving him the option of calling me back to do special projects, movie
magazines, one shots, and compilations?
Attorney Cox: Objection,
foundation.
A: What's your
question?
By Mr. Dubay: My
question is, is it true that William DuBay --- that was the agreement between
the two of you?
A: I don't
remember exactly what the agreement was.
Q: Okay. But you
did keep his name on the masthead as consulting editor?
A: Yes, I did.
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Vague as to time.
Mr. Dubay: Excuse
me?
Attorney Cox: Vague
as to time.
Mr. Dubay: Let's
enter Warren companion page 148, Exhibit 19.
A: Yes.
By Mr. Dubay: Do
you ever recall having a conversation with Mr. Bernie Wrightson concerning
ownership rights for his work for Warren Publishing?
A: No, I do not
recall.
Q: You don't
recall the conversation. Is it possible that you were quoted correctly as saying,
okay, I'm going to pay you the best money you ever made in comics?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for speculation.
A: I don't
remember if I said it or not.
By Mr. Dubay: Did
Mr. Bernie Wrightson have a work for hire understanding with you?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Foundation.
Mr. Dubay: Specifically?
Foundation objection?
Attorney Cox: Foundation.
It basically is asking about Mr. Bernie Wrightson's understanding.
Mr. Dubay: I'm
asking Mr. Warren if he had an agreement with Mr. Wrightson.
Attorney Cox: That's
a different question. You can ask that question.
Mr. Dubay: Perfect.
Did you have an
agreement with Mr. Bernie Wrightson that expressed the arrangement as work for hire?
A: I don't
remember.
Mr. Dubay: Warren
companion page 252, Exhibit 20.
Under appendix ---
well, take time to review the document, specifically under Appendix B?
WITNESS COMPLIES
A: And what is
your question?
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
The question is, is it accurate that William DuBay wrote more stories than any
other writer for Warren Publishing Company with a total of 262?
A: I never kept a
count, but it appears here that someone made a count of them.
I can't vouch for
this accuracy.
Q: Okay.
But it does state
on this document that Bill DuBay wrote 262 stories?
A: Say it again.
Q: But does it
state on this document that Bill DuBay wrote 262 stories, and that he was the
most prolific writer for ---?
A: I don't know if
this is correct or not.
Q: But does it
state that in the document?
A: It states that,
yes. But I didn't write this.
Q: I appreciate
that.
Mr. Dubay: I
appreciate your patience. Exhibit 21 is the Eerie
Volume 82 copyright registration.
By Mr. Dubay: The
name of the claimant.
Did you have an
opportunity to ---?
A: What's your
question?
Q: Have you had an
opportunity to review it? Is the name of the claimant Warren Publishing Company?
A: It is.
Q: Okay. Thank
you.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
22 is Eerie Volume 82 cover.
Mr. Warren, do you
recognize this as the cover?
A: What is the
question?
Q: Do you
recognize this as the cover to Eerie
82, Eerie Volume 82?
A: It's been a
long time since I saw it, but I --- I can't --- I can't vouch for its accuracy
because it's been too long ago. If you showed me the actual magazine, I could
say yes, that's it.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. Do
you mind if I pull that out please?
Attorney Cox: Not
at all. That's good.
A: Yes.
By Attorney Cox: Okay.
This appears to be an original Volume 82?
A: It does.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: Would
you like to look at it, Mr. Cox?
Attorney Cox: I
recognize it.
Mr. Dubay: Thank
you.
By Mr. Dubay: But
the answer to the question, was that a yes, this appears to be a cover of ---?
A: Yes, it appears
to be.
Mr. Dubay: And
there is the Eerie Volume 82 title page
marked Exhibit 23.
Q: Do you
recognize this as the title page to Eerie
82? Would you like to see the original?
A: I recognize it.
Q: Okay. And it's consulting editor, Bill DuBay?
A: I see it.
Q: Okay. Cover
art, is it attributed also to Bill DuBay?
A: I see it.
Q: Okay. I have a
question if you don't mind? Is the cover art attributed to Bill DuBay?
A: It is.
Q: And in the
indicia, 1977 by Warren Publishing Company? And this, of course, is marked.
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you, Mr.
Warren. Just trying to get through this as quickly as possible for you.
Mr. Dubay: This is
Eerie Volume 82, page 5, Exhibit Number
24.
A: And what is the
question?
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Specifically, does it attribute the story script, the story as the author Bill
DuBay?
A: Yes.
Mr. Dubay: That
could have been a goof. Marked Exhibit Number 25 is Eerie Volume 83 cover.
Mr. Warren, can
you tell me if you recognize this as Eerie
Volume 83, the cover?
A: Yes.
Mr. Dubay: Marked
Exhibit 26 is the Eerie 83 title page.
Do you recognize
this as the title page for Eerie Volume
83?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it true that
Budd DuBay --- excuse me. Is it true that Budd Lewis was the writer of The Day
Before Tomorrow?
A: I don't know if
it's true or not. It says so here. I have to assume it is.
Q: Okay.
Would you like to
see an original?
A: No. I see it's
printed here. If it's correct, it's correct.
Q: Okay.
And Bill DuBay is
listed as consulting editor?
A: He is.
Q: You doing okay?
A: Huh?
Q: You doing okay?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Are you doing
okay?
A: I'm fine. I'm
cold, but I'm fine.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 27 is the Eerie 83, Volume 83
preliminary cover.
Do you recognize
this as the Eerie Volume 83 Preliminary
Cover?
A: No, I don't
recognize it because I can't remember whether this was the cover or not. This
is a concept rough.
Q: Right. If we
refer to --- back to exhibit --- the prior exhibit?
A: Do what?
Q: If we refer
back to the previous exhibit, which would be 26, this was the Eerie Volume 83 cover, if you would compare
them?
Attorney Cox: Twenty-six
(26) was the title page.
A: Yes, I see it.
Mr. Dubay: Excuse
me. Was it 25 that was the cover?
Attorney Cox: Twenty-five
(25) was the cover.
Mr. Dubay: I
apologize. Twenty-five (25).
And if you can
compare the two, does this appear to be an example of work that would have been
provided to the final artist?
A: We never did
anything like this that I remember.
Q: Would you like
to see the original art so you can look at it?
A: The original
art?
Q: The original
art.
A: You have that?
Q: Of course, I
do.
A: No, I believe
you. It's just that I don't remember this, this number.
Q: Okay. If you
don't want me to provide it to you, just because the top half doesn't make it
very clear. But this is the original if you'd like to take a look at it
as well?
A: Yes, but we
don't know when that was done.
Q: Oh, I
understand.
A: It's not dated.
It could have been done yesterday.
Q: Oh, I
understand. Is it marked on the bottom right-hand corner?
A: Pardon?
Q: Did you review
the document?
A: I'm sorry.
What's the question?
Q: Is it marked on
the bottom right-hand corner The Cartoon Factory?
A: Yeah, it says
The Cartoon Factory.
Q: That was a
company that was started and founded by William DuBay in 1976. I'll establish
that further.
I just wanted to
answer your question, so you didn't think I was ---.
A: What was the
date? 1977?
Q: 1977, correct.
A: I don't recall
anything that says The Cartoon Factory. We never had any Cartoon Factory in our
company.
Q: Right. That was
a separate company then?
A: There was never
any company that I remember that said The Cartoon Factory in 1977.
Q: Okay. I can
appreciate that. But the final question as it relates to this
exhibit, does it
appear that that cover could have been been used as an example for this cover?
A: No.
Attorney Cox: Objection.
A: Because The
Cartoon Factory didn't exist at our company. And why would The Cartoon Factory
be on this in 1977?
By Mr. Dubay: Because
William DuBay owned The Cartoon Factory.
Mr. Dubay: Can I
ask this question?
Attorney Cox: No,
no.
Mr. Dubay: Well,
he just asked me a question. I wanted to ---.
A: I never heard
of it. Fine, because I don't know about it.
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Just --- we'll bring this back up at the time that's okay.
A: If you're
asking me did I see this or did this appear in 1977 at Warren Publishing
office, the answer is I don't remember seeing it.
Q: The question is
could this have been used as an example or instance to the final cover
rendering by the artist?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for speculation. There isn't a proper foundation.
Mr. Dubay: Well,
since he's the publisher, you'd be familiar with the process.
Attorney Cox: There's
no need to argue.
Mr. Dubay: Oh, I
understand.
A: I don't think
so. We didn't do things like this back then.
By Mr. Dubay: When
you say things, you mean, provide ---?
A: I never saw a
comprehensive thing like this before. We never did this.
Q: Okay. This is
the first time you've seen something like this?
A: I don't think I
remember ever seeing anything.
Q: But it's
possible that this was done?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for speculation.
Whenever you say
it's possible, I'm going to be objecting that it calls for speculation.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. I
can appreciate that.
Exhibit 28, Warren Presents The Rook title page.
A: Yes.
By Mr. Dubay: Mr.
Warren, it lists you as editor in chief and publisher.
Is that correct?
A: That's what it
says.
Q: Mr. Warren,
what were your responsibilities as editor in chief and publisher?
A: Just as it's
stated.
Q: Was it your
responsibility to supervise all work?
A: It was.
Q: And ---?
A: Not supervise.
You'd have to define supervise to me.
Q: Okay.
Was it your
responsibility --- did you have authority and control over what was finally
rendered in the final expression in the magazines?
A: I did.
Q: Thank you.
And does the cover
art --- does it state Paul Gulacy on the title page?
A: That's what it
says.
Q: Okay. Authors
are Bill DuBay and Budd Lewis?
A: That's what it
says.
Q: Okay. And the
copyright claimant is Warren Publishing Company?
A: Correct.
Attorney Cox: A
division of Warren Communications Corporation.
Mr. Dubay: Well, I
appreciate you adding that in there, but if you look at the copyright, the
copyright actually says --- this is just the copyright, Warren
Publishing Company,
all rights reserved.
Attorney Cox: I
see. But then it defines Warren Publishing Company below.
Mr. Dubay: I don't
know that that was necessary. The question was simple. Is the copyright Warren Publishing
Company? That was the question to Mr. Warren.
Attorney Cox: The
document speaks for itself.
Mr. Dubay: Oh, I
understand.
A: What was the
question?
By Mr. Dubay: Is
the copyright indicia for this issue Warren Publishing Company?
A: If that's what
it says, yes.
Q: Thank you.
Did you have a
work for hire arrangement with Paul Gulacy?
A: With who?
Q: Paul Gulacy,
the cover artist.
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for ---.
By Mr. Dubay: Did
Paul Gulacy retain copyrights to any cover art that he would have submitted to
Warren Publishing Company?
A: No. We didn't
have --- we didn't have copyright arrangements for people who did cover art for
us. We own the cover art outright.
Q: And you own the
copyright to that cover art as well?
A: We own the
copyrights, yes.
Q: Did that
permission to make derivative works --- I mean, could you make changes? Did you
have the authority to make changes to the work?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for a legal conclusion.
Please go ahead
and answer.
By Mr. Dubay: Did
you make or authorize changes to the original work that Paul Gulacy did?
A: I don't
remember Paul Gulacy.
Q: Right.
A: I don't know
what he did, and I can't recall if we made changes or not. But anything that I
published, we have the right to make any changes to if we bought --- if we
purchased the work.
Q: Very good. Would
Mr. Gulacy have the right to publish the work in a career book collecting all
of the artwork that he had presented?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for a legal conclusion.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Attorney Cox: You
can get an answer.
Mr. Dubay: I
understand. I'm just marking this exhibit.
A: Do you want me
to answer that question?
Mr. Dubay: I'd
like to enter Exhibit 29, the art.
Attorney Cox: You're
withdrawing the question. Correct?
Mr. Dubay: I'm
withdrawing it so I can restate it with evidence, if that's okay.
Attorney Cox: That's
fine.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. Exhibit
29 is the art book, Paul Gulacy.
Does this appear
to be a cover of the art of Paul Gulacy?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Would you like
to see the original?
A: No. I don't
know who Paul Gulacy is. I don't recognize the name, and I don't recognize the
art.
Q: Okay.
Does this appear
to be a cover of a book? That's just the question, not whether or not you
recognize the person.
A: I'm seeing this
for the first time.
Q: Okay.
A: This is what it
appears to be.
Q: It does appear
to be that? Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
30 is the Art of Paul Gulacy Book Page 92.
Take a look at
that. Do you recognize this painting?
A: No.
Q: At the bottom,
there's a notation that this was originally done for the cover of Warren
Publications The Rook Number Five.
However, when it was printed,
everything but the
figures of The Rook and the robot were
deleted. It's presented here in color for the first time.
Would you
recognize the revised version?
A: I don't
recognize any of this.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
31. Exhibit 31 is Warren Presents The Rook cover.
Do you recognize
this as being Warren Presents The Rook, the cover for Warren Presents The Rook? Would you like to see the original?
A: I don't. I
don't recognize it, but I see it here in front of me.
Q: Would you like
to see the original?
A: No. If it
appeared, then it appeared. Yes.
Q: Okay. So is the
answer ---?
A: But I recognize
that it looks like one of our covers.
Q: Is it the cover
for the Warren Presents The Rook magazine?
A: It looks like
it, yes.
Q: Okay. From the
prior exhibit, do you notice the changes? And I'll hand it to you so you can
compare the two. Do you notice that as an original or maybe the---?
A: Do I notice
what?
Q: Is it possible
--- excuse me. Is this a derivative, this exhibit, a derivative of this work?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: That's a yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: Do you
mind if I hand that back to the court reporter?
Thank you.
Warren Presents The Rook Registration Number TX 204-709, Exhibit 32.
A: Yes I see it.
By Mr. Dubay: Do
you recognize this as the registration TX 204-709 as Warren Presents The Rook?
A: Well, I don't
recognize it because I haven't seen it before. It's the first time I'm seeing
it.
Q: Okay.
Understood.
A: I didn't make
it a habit of looking at every registration thing that was put out.
Q: That
responsibility, as previously noted, was for Daniel Tunick. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And on the
second page of this document, Mr. Tunick's signature appears?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: On the second
page of the document?
A: Yes, I see it. What's
the question?
Q: Does Mr.
Tunick's signature appear?
A: That's his
name, yes.
Q: Okay.
A: And I recognize
it as one of the things that he did with each issue, yes.
Q: Thank you for
volunteering that.
The name of the
author, it's listed as Warren Publishing Company?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that
correct?
Underneath that,
it asks the question was the author's contribution to the work a work for hire?
And it is marked yes. Is that accurate?
A: I assume it is.
Q: Is it marked
yes though?
A: Yes, but I
assume it's accurate.
Q: And the author
of, it says briefly describe the nature of the author's contribution. It
appears it's a collective work. Is that correct?
A: I assume it is.
Q: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. Warren.
I do appreciate
your patience. I'm trying to move through these as quickly as possible. You
previously indicated ---. Excuse me.
Exhibit Number 33
is Warren Presents The Rook Making of a Comic Book Hero.
A: And what's the
question?
By Mr. Dubay: You
previously testified that you were responsible for the editorial --- the final
editing and the final expression of the magazines?
A: I testified
that I was responsible for the final editing of the magazine?
Q: Correct.
A: When did I
testify that?
Q: Well,
previously I asked the question if you're responsible for the final expression
of the magazine?
A: I don't
remember that question.
Q: Okay. Let me
ask you this question. I'll state it now again?
A: Okay.
Q: As editor and
chief for Warren Publishing Company, were you responsible for the final
expression of Warren Publishing Company's magazines?
A: Perhaps.
Q: Okay.
Are you familiar
with this?
A: No.
Q: The Making of a
Comic Book Hero?
A: No.
Q: You've never
seen it before?
A: If I did, I
don't remember.
Q: You don't
remember it. Okay. But is it true that it provides --- if you'd like
to take time to
read it, it identifies Budd Lewis and Bill DuBay as co-creators. It explains
the process in which they created it, and also explains the contribution of one
Howard Perez of Package and Play Development.
Would you like to
review this?
A: Yes, but I
can't read this. This is not clear.
Q: Oh, I'm sorry.
Attorney Cox: Why
don't you show him the original?
Mr. Dubay: If you
don't mind.
Here is the first
page and the rear inside cover that would be a continuation of that.
Attorney Cox: Take
your time.
A: I don't
remember. I don't remember.
By Mr. Dubay: Have
you have an opportunity ---?
A: I don't
remember Howard Peretz. I don't remember reading this. But I was there when it
was printed, all right.
Q: You were there
when it was printed?
A: In 1979, I was
running the company. Yes.
Q: That's
authentic?
A: I don't
remember any of it.
Q: Does that
appear authentic?
A: What?
Q: Does that
appear to be an authentic copy?
A: Oh, yes, it
appears to be.
Q: Inside the
article that you just read, does it describe Bill DuBay as starting The Cartoon
Factory?
A: It does, but I
don't remember that either.
Q: But it
describes that in this book?
A: Yeah, it describes
it, but I don't remember it.
Q: I understand. Does
it describe Howard Peretz and his participation from Package Play Development?
A: It does.
Q: Does it
describe that Budd Lewis was Bill DuBay's partner in The Cartoon Factory?
A: It does.
Q: Does it
describe that The Rook character was created
by The Cartoon Factory? And this would be the final paragraph on page two, if
you'd like a reference.
A: If it does,
yes.
Q: Does it
describe Mr. --- The Rook being
created by The Cartoon Factory?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Thank
you. I apologize for the redundance here. I just wanted to get the answer on
the record.
Attorney Cox: It's
a misrepresentation too.
Mr. Dubay: What's
that?
Attorney Cox: It's
a misrepresentation.
Mr. Dubay: Let's
go back to what you're referring to.
Attorney Cox: The
words say and besides ---.
A: And it also
describes a couple things I'm not ---.
Attorney Cox: And
besides, a 30-page adventure featuring Warren's overnight sensation, exciting
her heroes have been created. So it says besides that, exciting new heroes have
been created at The Cartoon Factory.
The Cartoon
Factory wasn't founded until '77.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. I'm
not sure what you're --- if you don't mind, I'm just --- I'm trying to ---
Attorney Cox: Sure.
The document says what it says.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Attorney Cox: You
can't change the content of the document.
Mr. Dubay: I'm not
trying to. All I'm asking here is does it say that, and then you're trying to
provide some explanation.
Do you have ---?
Attorney Cox: You
don't need to. The document speaks for itself.
Mr. Dubay: Oh, I
understand. No, I'm just asking him if it says that because he read the
document. I'm not trying to be argumentative. He says it says that. His answer
is yes. You can't change his answer.
Attorney Cox: I'll
cross examine myself.
By Mr. Dubay: Is
it true that it says Warren's overnight sensation, exciting new heroes have
been created at The Cartoon Factory by the same people who brought you Restin Dane and friends?
I'll read that
again.
Attorney Cox: Yeah,
it's the same people.
Mr. Dubay: I just
wanted to make sure that ---.
Attorney Cox: It
distinguishes between Cartoon Factory.
Let me just have a
conversation with you.
Mr. Dubay: Sure.
Attorney Cox: It
distinguishes between The Cartoon Factory and the people who brought you Restin Dane and friends.
Mr. Dubay: I
understand.
Attorney Cox: And
so you can't change what it says.
Mr. Dubay: I never
attempted to change it. I just asked if it said that and his answer was yes,
Mr. Cox. Did I misquote it?
Attorney Cox: Yes,
you did.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Attorney Cox: Yes,
you did.
Mr. Dubay: Let me
restate it and quote it correctly.
Attorney Cox: And
go through the entire sentence.
Mr. Dubay: And
besides a 30-page adventure featuring Warren's overnight sensation, exciting
new heroes have been created at The Cartoon Factory by the same people who
brought you Restin Dane and friends.
Attorney Cox: Correct,
correct.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Attorney Cox: So
the people at The Cartoon Factory are the same people ---.
Mr. Dubay: You're
providing an explanation. It's a simple question I'm asking him. And you said I
stated it incorrectly and then you said it was correct and
then you became
argumentative. And I'm just asking you not to become argumentative. I'm asking
you to allow me to complete my examination.
If it says it and
he says yes, I'm not sure what the confusion is. You want to interpret it.
Attorney Cox: No,
you want him to interpret it, and you want him to misinterpret it.
Mr. Dubay: No, no,
no. I read it again as you requested from the very start of the sentence.
Attorney Cox: Then
let the witness answer based upon your --- but you're ---.
Mr. Dubay: He did
answer, and the answer is of record.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
Then it is of
record that he didn't answer it based on what you said.
A: I might add
that not all of that is true.
By Mr. Dubay: Is
it true that this document states this?
A: Is it true that
what?
Q: The reason why
I'm asking if this document states this ---.
A: I can't hear
you.
Q: The reason why
I asked you if this document states this versus if you recall is because you
indicated that you cannot recall certain things about this.
A: No, I couldn't
recall any of it.
Q: There you go.
A: I don't recall
any of it, but I know a lot of it is not true.
Q: What I ---?
A: A lot of it's
hype.
Q: But does it
state this?
I'm just asking
you if it states this in a book that you were editor and chief of, does it
state this?
That was my only
question.
A: Well, it states
it, but that doesn't mean it's true.
Q: Okay. But you
were editor and chief of this magazine. Correct?
A: I could have
been on vacation. It still doesn't mean it's true.
Q: But were you
editor and chief of this magazine?
A: Of course.
Q: Thank you.
Attorney Cox: I'm
not trying to be argumentative. I was just trying to get the clear answers.
That's all. I promise. I know you see it differently, but that's the
way it was.
Mr. Dubay: This is
the The Rook registration 303-625, Exhibit
34.
Again, this is
less legible than my copy. Is it permissible for me to take the sticker and put
it on my copy because this appears to be less legible?
Is that okay? Do
you have a problem with that? This print, when it came out, appears to be less legible
than the copies we have.
Attorney Cox: Sure.
Go right ahead. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah.
Mr. Dubay: I
appreciate that.
Attorney Cox: Sure.
By Attorney Cox: Exhibit
34 is The Rook Registration 303-625, Mr.
Warren?
And if you just
confirm on the back page that Mr. Daniel Tunick signed this document?
A: What's the
question?
Q: Did Mr. Daniel
Tunick sign this document?
A: It appears to
be that way, yes.
Q: Thank you.
The name of the
author, is that Warren Publishing Company?
A: That's what it
says.
Q: And underneath
that, it says was this author's contribution to the work a work for hire, and
it is marked yes. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: The Rook Volume one, number one cover, Exhibit
35.
Mr. Warren, can
you look at that please? Does this appear to be a copy of Rook Number One, a
Warren magazine?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 36 is The Rook volume number
one title page.
Does this appear
to be a copy of the title page for The
Rook Number One dated October 1979?
A: It does.
Q: Does it list
W.B. DuBay as editor?
A: It does.
Q: Is that William
DuBay? Is W.B. DuBay William Dubay?
A: Yes, I see it.
It appears to be, yes.
Q: And is the
copyright indicia Warren Publishing Company?
A: Yes.
Q: Spelled out
Warren Publishing Company.
Is there any
notice at all on this document whatsoever that it's a division of Warren Communications
Corporation?
A: I can't read
this print.
Q: Okay. Which are
you having a hard time with?
Attorney Cox: You
know, I can stipulate that there is no reference to Warren Communications.
Mr. Dubay: I appreciate
that. Mr. Cox, you're a true gentleman.
I'm coming to this
letter dated September 27, 1976.
Mark this as
Exhibit 37. I understand that it has been introduced and I don't need to do it.
Now, in 1976, what
was, if you recall, Mr. William Dubay's nickname?
A: What?
Q: What was his
nickname, his trade name?
A: I called him
Dube.
Q: Dube. How is
that spelled, if you don't mind?
A: D-U-B-E.
Q: Okay.
Is this letter
addressed to Dube?
A: I have to read
this first.
Q: Of course. I
apologize.
A: Yes, I read it.
By Mr. Dubay:
Q: Okay. Is it
addressed to Dube, the nickname that you had given him?
A: It is.
Q: Okay.
And on the top
right corner where it's dated, it's dated September 27th, 1976.
Is that accurate?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Are you asking him are these words, what
appears on the
document?
Mr. Dubay: No, no,
no, no.
Attorney Cox: He's
already testified that those are a forgery.
Mr. Dubay: Well,
he recalled that he did not recall the signature or recall writing it. I'm
asking if he dictated it, and that was going to be the date underneath it of
September 24th, 1976, as the abbreviation, D-I-C-T, as though it were dictated
on
that date.
Was this letter
dictated on that date?
A: I didn't
dictate this.
Mr. Dubay: That
was the question. It wasn't meant to be redundant, Mr. Cox.
So the signature,
you're saying, is not your original signature?
A: I don't believe
it is.
Q: Okay. So you
are aware the original document is available for examination?
Attorney Cox: Is
it?
Mr. Dubay: It's
not here. It's being sent via FedEx and I will produce that. But I have an
expert that will authenticate the signatures on this document and another. I
just wanted to state for the record. He indicated that it was not his
signature, and I wanted to make sure that that's what he said.
Attorney Cox: The
witness said that?
Mr. Dubay: The
witness said that he did not believe signing it.
By Attorney Cox: Is
that correct?
A: I didn't hear
the question.
Q: If I can refer
back to this document?
Attorney Cox: Exhibit
Number 37. Was your answer that you did not believe you signed that or do you
not recall signing it?
A: My answer is I
don't believe that that's my signature.
Q: Okay. Follow-up
question. Back to Exhibit Number 37. Are you absolutely 100 percent positive
that that's not your signature?
A: Uh-huh (yes.)
Yes.
Q: All right.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 38 is Garbo Editorial Rufus Number 49 Cover.
Do you recognize
this cover?
A: I'm seeing it
for the first time.
Q: Okay. Did
Warren Publishing Company or Jim Warren exercise his rights by licensing the
word abroad in other countries, such as the Garbo Editorial?
A: We did license
our material to other countries, yes.
Q: Is Garbo
Editorial one of those?
A: I don't
remember if Garbo was one or not.
Q: Okay. Can I
produce the original magazine for you to take a look at?
A: Well, I'd have
to --- I would like to see the original.
Q: Perfect. Thank
you.
Mr. Dubay: If it's
all right, I will also mark Garbo Editorial Rufus Number 49, Page 14 as Exhibit
39.
A: What was the
question?
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Do you recognize this cover now that you have the
original?
A: I recognize the
cover ---
Q: Excellent.
A: --- as
reproduction of one of our American editions, yes.
Q: Were you Garbo
Editorial or did you just license your work to Garbo Editorial?
A: We licensed it
to other countries. This appears to be one of our Spanish licensees.
Q: Okay.
So Garbo Editorial
is not Warren Publishing Company. Correct?
A: No.
Q: And the answer
is yes, you do recognize this as the cover?
A: Do I recognize
what?
Q: Do you
recognize this as the cover?
A: I do.
Q: Thank you.
And if you don't
mind, Exhibit 39 is page 14 of this book, if you'd like to take a look at the original.
I'll also turn that to you. Specifically the title La Boca Del Inferno. If you
notice, is the copyright Warren Publishing Company?
A: What is the
question?
Q: Is the
copyright Warren Publishing Company?
A: Where? Where
are you pointing?
Q: I apologize. And
here's the original if you want to see it. Does that copy ---?
A: DC Comix New
York. I don't understand that.
Q: So is that ---?
A: What is the
date on this?
Q: This is a 1977.
A: I don't
understand that. DC Comix is one of our competitors. That's Superman.
I don't understand
this.
Q: Exactly. Well,
let me ask you this then. Does --- since
you only licensed certain works to Garbo Editorial, does it appear that Garbo
Editorial also licensed work from your competitors?
A: I don't know
anything about Garbo Editorial, so I can't answer that.
Q: Is that the DC
Comix indicia? Does that copyright say DC Comix and not Warren Corporation?
A: I know it says
copyright DC Comix.
Q: Thank you.
A: It's possible
that Garbo licensed from different companies and put them together in one
magazine.
Q: And it appears
that's the case, and that's really what I was trying to affirm.
A: That's what it
appears to be.
Q: Thank you very
much.
A: Some foreign
companies did that.
Q: Are you done
with this? Thank you.
Mr. Dubay: And if
you can mark Exhibit Garbo Editorial Rufus Number 49, Page 39, Exhibit 40.
A: And what is the
question?
By Mr. Dubay: In
the bottom left corner, it has Guion, which is scriptor in Spanish. Is that the
name Budd Lewis?
A: Yes, I see it.
Q: Was Budd Lewis
the author of this ---
A: It appears.
Q: --- according
to this document?
A: It appears that
he was, yes.
Q: And over to the
right, if you turn it to the side, it's probably easier to see it that way,
what is the name of the indicia or the copyright?
A: It's copyright
Warren Publishing Company.
Q: Warren
Publishing Company. Does it say Warren Publishing Company, a division of Warren
Communications Corporation?
A: No, it says
Warren Publishing Company.
Q: Do you see
Warren Communications Corporation anywhere on this?
A: I do not.
Q: Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Warren. I appreciate all of your patience. I'm trying to move this.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
41, Garbo Editorial Rufus Number 53 cover.
If you don't mind
taking a look at that.
Do you recognize
this as Rufus Cover Number 53?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Would you like
to see the original? Would you like to see the original?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Okay.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 42, Garbo Editorial Rufus Number 53, Page 45.
Do you recognize
this as page 45 of Garbo Editorial?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: It appears to
be. And the indicia, the copyright indicia, can you read that to me please?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Can you read
what it says please?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Can you read
out loud what the indicia says?
A: It says
copyright by Warren Publishing Company.
Q: And underneath
it?
A: All rights
reserved.
Q: Does that
appear to be accurate?
A: In what way?
Q: Is that
accurate? Is this a Warren Publishing Company title? Would you like to see the
original to see if that's ---?
A: It says Warren
Publishing Company.
Q: Okay. I'll
accept that.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 43, letter from Nicole Cuti to Budd Lewis.
Do you recognize
this stationery?
A: What?
Q: Do you
recognize the stationery?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: On the bottom
of the stationery ---
A: I recognize it.
Q: --- does that
state Warren Publishing Company?
A: I recognize it.
Q: Does it state
Warren Publishing Company? Yes?
A: What's your
question?
Q: I'm sorry. The
question is do you recognize --- does it state Warren Publishing Company on the
bottom of the stationery?
A: What about it?
Warren Publishing Company.
Q: Does it state
Warren Publishing Company?
A: Yes, it states
it. Yes.
Q: Is there any
mention of Warren Communications Corp.?
A: No.
Q: Okay.
A: It does not
mention Warren Communications.
Q: What is the date
of this document? Does it show a date, a month, and a year?
A: 7/76.
Q: Does that also
mean July 1976?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
No foundation.
By Mr. Dubay: Is
this a letter from or does this appear to be a letter from Nicole Cuti?
A: It's not a
letter. It's a memo.
Q: A memo?
A: And it's
written by Nick whoever.
Q: Nicole Cuti. Was
he an editor for Warren Publishing Company?
A: Nick was a
contributor, but I don't remember if he was an editor or not.
Q: Can I present
to you Eerie 82?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Can I present
to you Eerie 82?
A: Can you?
Q: Present to you
my original copy of Eerie 82 that identifies
him as an editor?
A: Well, does it
say he was an editor?
Q: Well, if you
can read?
A: If it says he's
an editor, then I guess he's an editor.
Q: If you don't
mind?
Attorney Cox: At
least he's an editor as of the date of that.
Mr. Dubay: Precisely.
Yes. Just establishing that Nicole Cuti was an assistant editor of Eerie.
A: Assistant
editor.
By Mr. Dubay: Do
you recall the conversation?
A: Assistant
editor is not editor. It says assistant editor. Big difference.
Q: Well, was he an
editor?
A: He was not an
editor. He was an assistant editor.
Q: Okay. I
appreciate the clarification.
A: Big difference.
Very big difference.
Q: I apologize. I didn't
mean to confuse.
A: Incredibly big
difference.
Q: But he was an
employee? Was he an employee of Warren Publishing Company at the time or
assistant editor?
A: I don't
remember if he was an employee or whether he was freelance. I don't remember.
Q: Okay. Do you
recall this conversation?
A: No.
Q: You don't
recall this quotation?
A: No.
Q: Okay. I
appreciate that.
Actually, going
back to Exhibit 43, just one follow-up question.
But is it true
what he quotes here, whether you may be mistaken or not, we make comics and I
own those comics at the time of July 1976?
A: What is your
question?
Q: Is it true that
we make comics, meaning that you, Jim Warren, Warren Publishing Company makes
comics and I own those comics?
A: This is out of
context. I don't know what context I said this. And I don't even know if I said
it. If Nick says --- Nick's saying I said it doesn't mean I said it.
Q: Oh, I can
appreciate that. I was just curious if you owned the comics in 1976?
A: I owned Warren
Publishing Company. I owned Warren Communication Corporation.
Q: Okay.
A: I owned the
copyrights. I don't know how far you want me to take this.
Q: I think that
satisfies the answer. I think it does. I appreciate your clarification.
Mr. Dubay: Near
Mint Fanzine, Number 44.
A: I'm sorry.
Mr. Dubay: Near
Mint Fanzine is going to be ---.
A: I didn't hear
you.
Mr. Dubay: Near
Mint Fanzine.
A: Yes, I'm not
familiar with it.
By Mr. Dubay: I
understand. It's Exhibit 44 if you don't mind taking a look at
it.
Attorney Cox: Is
this document dated?
Mr. Dubay: I can
produce the original if you'd like.
Attorney Cox: If
you could, yeah.
Mr. Dubay: It was
dated in 1981, I believe, from what I recall of the time frame.
Attorney Cox: Oh,
yes. It says April 1981.
Mr. Dubay: April
1981. Thank you very much.
Attorney Cox: Your
copy didn't have a date on it.
Mr. Dubay: It's
possible. I copied the entire page. What I did is I copied the entire interview
so nothing would have been taken out of context. But I can
include --- I
mean, since you ---.
Attorney Cox: Let's
just state for the record that the original ---
Mr. Dubay: That
the original.
Attorney Cox: ---
contains a date of April 1981.
Mr. Dubay: Perfect.
I agree with that. Thank you very much.
By Mr. Dubay Q:
The reason I bring this is because I just want to understand.
Do you know --- do
you recall what hours Bill worked?
A: Do I recall?
Q: What hours Bill
worked, he typically worked?
A: I have no way
of knowing what hours Bill worked. I wasn't there with him at the time.
Q: When you were
present, do you recall?
A: Well, I wasn't
right by his elbow when he worked.
Q: I understand.
Okay.
A: But what is
your question?
Q: Well, the
question was regarding his hours?
A: I don't know
what his hours were.
Q: I understand.
We'll move on to the next question if that's okay.
Comic --- Bill is
quoted in this interview as comic book writing is the lowest paid form of
writing. The authors sign away all their rights to their work, and unlike any
other writers, never realize royalties from their stories or characters they
have created. In your understanding of your dealings at Warren Publishing
Company, is that a true statement?
And I can repeat
it if you like.
A: Well, it was
true throughout the industry.
Q: Is that a yes?
A: That's the way
the industry worked in those days.
Q: I not only
would agree, but that isn't what I asked.
A: And what's your
question?
Q: Well, I mean,
it's just that. Bill wrote comic book writing is the lowest paid form of
writing. The authors sign away all rights to their work, and unlike any other
writers, never realize royalties from their stories and characters ---?
A: I read it.
Q: Is he --- did
he accurately describe the situation in 1981?
A: He's expressing
an opinion.
Q: And is that
opinion consistent with yours?
A: And he's
expressing an opinion when he says it's the lowest form, et cetera. I don't
necessarily agree with that opinion.
Q: But do you
agree with his opinion that they sign away all of their rights, never realizing
any royalties?
A: Well, that's
not an opinion. That was a fact and it was common throughout the industry. The
answer is yes.
Q: Thank you.
That's all I was looking for. I apologize.
A: There may have
been exceptions, but the answer is yes.
Q: Okay. Then it
states the same is true for artists who spend a great deal more time per page
than the writers. Was the same --- was it the same for artists also?
A: It was.
Q: Okay. I
appreciate that. And if you can flip to the back page. This is signed by Bill
DuBay. Correct?
A: Say that again.
Q: Is this signed
by Bill DuBay?
A: Is it signed by
him?
Q: Yes. Under
where it says his name.
A: Oh, his name?
You're actually on authenticity?
Q: Well, I have
the original here as well, if you'd like to take a look at it.
Attorney Cox: No.
We don't do --- I don't think anyone could dispute that the typed name Bill
DuBay appears.
Mr. Dubay: That's
all I was really asking.
Attorney Cox: Well,
that speaks for itself. Asking the witness to say what the typed words are doesn't
make it any more true.
Mr. Dubay: I can
appreciate it. All I wanted to say is that this was Bill's interview. That this
is something that he wrote.
Attorney Cox: It
purports to be Bill's interview.
Mr. Dubay: It
purports to be. That's what I was trying to get on the record.
And then also the
editors --- it states this article will Bill was originally done as a
question-answer
interview, but Bill's remarks were delivered in such continuity that we just
eliminated the question.
Does it state
that?
A: I don't think I
understand.
Attorney Cox: He's
asking you to read English. He's asking you if those words appear on that page.
Mr. Dubay: That's
what I'm asking, yes.
Attorney Cox: And
that is not an appropriate deposition question.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. So
I guess you object. Is that what you're saying?
Attorney Cox: I
object. And I think it's --- to some extent, it can be used for harassment.
Mr. Dubay: I'm
not.
Attorney Cox: I
know you're not. And I just wanted to explain to you that in many cases, there
are many documents. And to have a witness come in and tell you what the words
are on the document is generally not an appropriate question because when it
becomes repetitive, it becomes harassing.
And I know you
don't have a subjective intention to do that, and I don't want to say that. But
I do want to say that you're not really advancing the ball by having the
witness testify that the exhibit has these words on it.
Mr. Dubay: I
appreciate that.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
That's all I'm trying to do. I understand that you're not a lawyer and you're
proceeding in a way that is much many systematic than most people who are representing
this.
Mr. Dubay: Sure,
sure.
Attorney Cox: So I
recognize that, and I just wanted to say that I'm not being tricky when I say
that.
Mr. Dubay: Mr.
Cox, I appreciate your comments. I do.
Attorney Cox: Thank
you.
Mr. Dubay: Trustee's
bill of sale, Exhibit Number 45. Mr. Warren, do you recognize this document?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Do you
recognize this document?
A: No, I don't
recognize it.
Q: Would you like
to take a moment and read over it?
WITNESS COMPLIES
A: Okay. I read
it.
By Mr. Dubay: Does
this document purport to transfer any rights to The Rook comic magazine?
A: I don't know.
Q: Would you like
to take an opportunity to review it?
A: I don't know. I
would have to talk to my lawyer and ask him that question.
Q: Well, then let
me rephrase it. Is there anything specifically stated within this
trustees bill of
sale that identifies The Rook as a part
of the sale?
A: I don't believe
so.
Q: Thank you. I
have one more question before I ---.
A: Excuse me. I
take that back. The Rook was part of
Warren Publishing material, so that does include The Rook.
Q: Can you show me
where it says that?
A: Well, again,
I'm not an attorney, so I can't interpret this. But if it takes into account
all of the properties of Warren Publishing, The
Rook is part of that.
Q: It doesn't
purport to. If we're reading it, it specifies. And I'm just asking if there's
any specific reference to The Rook?
That's what I was asking.
A: I don't see the
word Rook in here, but, again, I would have to ask an attorney that question.
Q: Okay.
If you don't mind
the final page, number two of the final page, is it true --- and this is here.
A: I don't
recollect this is the same document.
Q: There's a
missing page there. And it says the above shall include the trustee's right,
title, and interest, if any, to the copyrights and the trustee's rights, title,
and interest, if any, to use and reuse the literary materials and all media in perpetuity
throughout the
world. Is that correct?
Attorney Cox: Is
that correct that it says that?
By Mr. Dubay: Is
it correct that it states that? I would have asked ---
A: It appears.
Q: --- if he
wasn't familiar with it and it's an official document used in the record, that
it states that, if any.
Okay. Thank you.
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Thank you.
Attorney Cox: If
he was familiar with it?
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
46, Warren Communication Corp Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Transcripts.
Previously, you
described a conversation between ---?
By Mr. Dubay: Previously,
you discussed a conversation with Bill whereby you requested certain documents
from him. Do you recall?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Do you recall
testifying earlier to a conversation that you had with Bill?
Attorney Cox: You
should say Bill DuBay.
By Mr. Dubay: Bill
DuBay. Excuse me. With William DuBay about certain documents that you requested
from him?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall
what those documents were?
A: Do I recall?
Q: What the
documents were ---
A: No.
Q: --- that you
requested. Exhibit 46, Warren Communication Corp Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
Transcripts. Could you take a look at that? Could you just tell me
if you recognize
this as the document that Bill ---?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Do you
recognize this, the transcripts?
A: Yes, but I
don't believe this is what I requested.
Q: You don't
believe that this is the document?
A: No. No, this is
not what I requested.
Q: But you do
recognize this?
A: Well, I --- I
recognize --- I saw it when it first happened.
Q: Okay.
A: But I haven't
seen it since.
Q: Okay.
But you recognize
that you were there when it happened?
A: I was there
when it happened, yes.
Q: Were you at the
bankruptcy proceeding when it happened?
A: Pardon?
Q: Were you at the
bankruptcy proceeding when it happened?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Were you at the
bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.
Q: Oh, okay. Because
that's what I was referring to. That's when this testimony was taken. These
transcripts are from that Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
A: I understand.
Q: Okay. And you
indicated you were familiar with it, so I just wanted to ---
A: I understand.
Q: --- to
understand the extent.
A: I probably saw
this afterwards.
Q: Okay.
Do these
transcripts --- did this --- do these transcripts and did these transcripts
provide you standing with your lawsuit in Warren v. Harris?
A: Say that again.
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for a legal conclusion.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. I
can appreciate that. We'll have these entered at a different time, but I
appreciate it.
Do you recognize
these?
That's all that
really matters. I don't want to have to go through them all because it would
take some time.
Attorney Cox: And
just let's have a discussion about lunch. Are you --- how are you doing?
THE WITNESS: I'm
fine. I'm all right.
Attorney Cox: Because
I don't want the witness to get tired and hungry.
Mr. Dubay: Of
course.
Attorney Cox: Do
you think we can finish before lunch or are we going to not?
Mr. Dubay: I'm
sure we can finish before lunch.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
So these are exhibits and you have like one or two questions for each of them?
Mr. Dubay: Generally.
Attorney Cox: Let's then go ahead. Just be mindful of the
witness's comfort.
Mr. Dubay: I can
appreciate that.
Exhibit 47, Warren
v. Harris Amended Complaint.
Tell me if you
recall that.
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. If you
can look at paragraph four, is it true that you would ---?
A: I'm sorry. What
page?
Q: Paragraph four.
I apologize. It's on page three.
A: Page?
Q: Page three.
Page three, paragraph four?
A: Yes.
Q: It indicates
here that Mr. Warren is the sole shareholder to Warren Publishing II, and was
the sole shareholder of the original Warren Publishing Company,
Publishing, the
original owner of the Creative Works below.
Is that a true
statement?
A: Is what?
Q: Is that a true
statement, the statement made of record?
A: That I was the
sole shareholder, yes.
Q: Okay. You were
the original sole shareholder and the original owner of the Creative Works?
A: I believe so.
Q: Okay.
We're going to go
to paragraph 22. And I will tell you what page that is. It's page nine, Mr.
Warren. Can you flip to page nine? And it's paragraph 22.
A: Yes.
Q: Have you had an
opportunity to read it?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it true that
it's stated for record that the sole shareholder and distributee –
A: Is it true
what?
Q: Is it true that
the sole shareholder and distributee of Publishing, upon its dissolution, was
Mr. Warren?
A: Yes.
Q: And among other
properties and assets distributed to Mr. Warren upon the dissolution of
Publishing was the sole right, title, and interest in and to the
Creative Works,
including the copyrights?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for a legal conclusion, but answer ---
A: I don't
understand.
Attorney Cox: ---
to the best of your ability.
By Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Is it true that your position in your Amended Complaint is stated as such that
the sole shareholder and distributee of Publishing upon its dissolution was Mr.
Warren?
A: Yes.
Q: And that among
property and assets distributed to Mr. Warren upon the dissolution of
Publishing was the sole right, title, and interest in and to the Creative Works,
including the copyrights issued in respect thereof?
Attorney Cox: And
I'll object that it calls for a legal conclusion.
But subject to
that objection, you can answer.
Mr. Dubay: I'm
just asking if he stated this for the record.
Attorney Cox: It
says --- the document says what it says.
Mr. Dubay: I
understand.
Attorney Cox: It
doesn't become any more true by having the witness say that the piece of paper
says this.
Mr. Dubay: Then I
will just rephrase it so it doesn't state the exact same thing.
Mr. Warren, upon
the dissolution of Publishing, did the copyrights revert to you in sole
ownership?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for a legal conclusion.
Go ahead and
answer to the best of your ability.
By Mr. Dubay: The
question was is it true that the copyrights and all title, sole title, reverted
to you upon dissolution of Warren Publishing?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
He can answer. I just want to restate it.
Did you ever
assign or purport to assign any title or interest to the Creative Works or
copyrights to Warren Communications?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: Do you recall
assigning?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: You don't
recall assigning any copyrights to Warren Communications Corp.?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: Okay.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. Exhibit
Number 48 is Warren v. Harris Order of Discontinuance.
Take a look at
that and let me know if you recognize the document.
WITNESS COMPLIES By
Mr. Dubay:
Q: This is
specific here. This is why this question becomes relevant.
Have you read it?
Have you had an opportunity to read it, Mr. Warren?
A: I see it, yes.
Q: Okay.
Do you recognize
the document?
A: I don't
recognize any of these, but I understand what they are.
Q: Okay.
It purports that
there was a settlement of some sort that caused this order of discontinuance?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: Did that take
place on or about October 25th of 2000?
A: I'm sorry. Did
that what?
Q: Did that
settlement take place on or about October 25th of 2000?
A: I don't know
about the date, but the settlement took place, yes.
Q: Certainly
within 30 days of that date?
A: It took place,
yes.
Q: Okay.
And what were the
terms of that settlement? Let me restate it.
A: I retained ---
I got back the rights to all of my publications with the exception of that.
Q: Did those
publications include Creepy and Eerie?
A: They did.
Q: And all works
contained inside those works?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: And all works
contained inside those titles?
A: All of the
works, yes.
Q: Okay.
The individual
works inside? The individual works inside?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.
That's all I have
for this document.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
49 is a copyright assignment unto New Comic Company.
Take a look at
this document, please.
WITNESS COMPLIES
A: Yes.
By Mr. Dubay: Do
you recall this agreement?
A: Do I recall the
transaction?
Q: Did you assign
to New Comic Company your rights to Creepy
and Eerie?
A: Yes.
Q: Did those ---
did that assignment include all characters and all stories?
A: Creepy and Eerie?
Q: For Creepy and Eerie.
A: Yes.
Q: Would that also
include The Rook?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Would that also
include The Rook?
A: No.
Q: The Rook was excluded from this
transaction?
A: The Rook as a publication --- as a
separate publication, it was. Yes. It was a separate publication.
Q: The Rook magazine did not convey, is
what you're saying, but The Rook, the
character that was created and appeared in Eerie
82, did that convey under this
document?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Calls for a legal conclusion.
A: I don't
remember.
By Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Did you transfer all rights to all characters contained within Eerie?
A: I don't
remember.
Q: Can you read
the document?
A: I don't
remember what the transaction was.
Q: Okay.
In the document it
--- and I'll just read it out so you can refresh your recollection.
For good and
valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, James Warren and
Warren Publishing Company, collectively owners and individual
owner, jointly and
severally grant, sell, and assign to New Comic Company, LLC, New Comic, and its
successors and assigns exclusively and forever all right, title,
and interest into
and relating to those magazines known as Creepy
and Eerie, and all component parts
thereof, including without limitation the titles, stories,
illustrations, ---
A: Yes, yes.
Q: ---
photographs, characters, dialogue, look and feel of the magazines?
A: I guess so,
yes.
Q: Okay. Did you
convey the characters contained within Eerie
magazine to New Comic Company?
A: If that's what
the document called for, yes.
Q: Okay. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Dubay: I
wanted to avoid this document, but I probably can't now.
This is going to
be Exhibit Number 50. And it's assignment --- it's conflicting assignment of resolution
agreement and quit claim deed.
Have you had an
opportunity to review the document? Have you had the opportunity to review the document?
A: I have reviewed
it, yes.
Q: Can we start
with the first page, the word agreement?
On the third
paragraph, it states the parties have previously had various disputes in
connection with the IPs?
A: You're going a
little too fast for me.
Q: Yes, sir. I'll
slow down.
A: Paragraph
three?
Q: Paragraph
three.
A: The foregoing
confirmation?
Q: I apologize. I
mean, start --- the third paragraph in order. And this ---?
A: Where are you?
Q: I apologize.
A: Here?
Q: Yes, sir, I am.
Does it appear that this is an agreement that settles differences between ---?
A: Parties have
previously had various disputes. I don't understand that.
Q: Well, my
question was does this appear to be an agreement between New Comic Company and
William B. Dubay, LLC?
A: It appears to
be, but I'm not an attorney.
Q: Oh, no. I
understand. I wasn't asking for the meaning of it whatsoever. Just does it
appear to be an agreement?
A: It appears to
be, but I'm seeing this for the first time. And I don't know what it
represents.
Q: I understand.
If we can turn to
paragraph six?
Attorney Cox: Paragraph
numbered six?
Mr. Dubay: Numbered
six.
Thank you, Mr.
Cox.
Paragraph numbered
six?
A: Yes.
Q: It states the
parties, properties, and IPs confirmed to the other by this agreement. The
parties further agree and acknowledge that this clause of the
agreement shall be
construed and is intended to be a quit claim deed from one party to the other
in connection with those properties and IPs as described
herein.
Is The Rook ---?
A: I don't
understand. I'm not an attorney. I can't answer that.
Q: Oh, I
understand. Is the terminology quit claim deed in this ---?
A: I repeat, I
don't understand this. I'm not an attorney.
Q: I can
appreciate that.
A: Well, what's
your question?
Q: My question
specifically is the terminology and language of quit claim deed in this
agreement.
A: I don't know.
Q: Can you review
page six? I'm not asking for the meaning of it as you interpret it. I'm just
asking does it exist?
A: I repeat to
you, I don't know. This is legal words.
Q: Are the words a
quit claim deed?
A: I don't even
know what a quit claim deed means.
Q: Oh, okay. I
appreciate that.
Attorney Cox: But
the words are in there. We can stipulate to that.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
I mean, you did
stipulate that a quit claim ---?
Attorney Cox: That
the words are there.
Mr. Dubay: The quit
claim is there. Perfect. As long as we stipulate that that's the case.
Attorney Cox: Those
words are there.
Mr. Dubay: He was
being very vague and trying not to answer that. I just wanted the answer.
That's all. And I thought he should be privy to it considering he testified a
moment ago that he assigned it to New Comic Company. So if they would have
assigned it to me, he would be aware of it.
That's all I was
asking.
Marvel Preview.
Set it aside.
We're going to go
to Exhibit 57, the 1977 comic art convention.
Attorney Cox: Exhibit
51 is next.
Mr. Dubay: Oh, I'm
sorry. It looked like 57 by the way she wrote it.
Attorney Cox: Thank
you.
Mr. Dubay: It's
51. Thank you for the clarification. Like I say, it looks like 57.
1977 Comic Art
Convention.
A: Yes.
Q: Mr. Warren, do
you recognize this image as the rear cover to the 1977 ---
A: I do.
Q: ---- comic art
convention?
A: I do.
Q: We create,
others imitate. Who came up with that slogan?
A: I'm sorry?
Q: We create,
others imitate.
A: Yes.
Q: Where did that
slogan come from?
A: From my mouth.
Q: Who were you
referring to when you say others imitate?
A: Other comic
book publishers.
Q: Can you specify
who they were? I understand there were several.
A: Marvel is one
of them.
Q: Thank you.
A: They imitated
us with their black and white comics.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Warren, you're
my hero. Thank you so much for saying that for the record. Well said.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. This
is Exhibit 52. And this is Creepy Volume
100, page 13, which is a survey that appeared in your magazine.
Attorney Cox: Wasn't
the original of this a two-page document?
Mr. Dubay: No, it
was not. It was a one-page document.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
Do you have the original handy?
Mr. Dubay: I
don't. I did not bring the original. I can send you the original. I have seven or
eight copies of it with me this morning. I only brought Creepy with me.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
Mr. Dubay: But it
will be self-authenticating.
Attorney Cox: And
what's the date of this document?
Mr. Dubay: The
year is 1978. The volume is 100. The page is 13.
The date on the
magazine is not printed here.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
Mr. Dubay: I can
provide that to you for authentication.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
Fine. Fine. That's all.
Mr. Dubay: As a
matter of fact, I did produce that to you. If you look at the request for
production, I provided that to you.
Attorney Cox: Oh,
okay.
Mr. Dubay: So you
have this.
Attorney Cox: Good.
Mr. Dubay: The
original magazine you have, is what I'm saying.
Attorney Cox: Good.
Good.
Mr. Dubay: And, of
course, you have this as well.
Attorney Cox: Okay.
Thank you. Please proceed.
A: What is the
question?
By Mr. Dubay: Are
you familiar with this? Have you seen this before?
A: It's been 40
years ago. I'm not familiar with it to the degree I can discuss it
intelligently.
Q: Sure, sure. This
is crystal on the top.
A: What is the
question?
Q: Did The Rook cause Eerie magazine ---?
A: Say that again.
Q: Did The Rook or the introduction of The Rook cause Eerie magazine to outpace and outsell Famous Monsters of Filmland, Creepy
magazine, and Vampirella?
A: No. There's no
way of anyone saying yes or no to that.
Q: Okay. Follow-up
question.
Were the
publication's figures --- when you published, inside the magazines, was there a
federal statute that required the publication of the circulation figures in the
magazines?
A: Yes.
Q: So is there a
way to confirm the circulation numbers?
A: Yes.
Mr. Dubay: And
this may have been something that I decided to set aside.
If Mr. Warren can
recall, then that helps. But if he can't, then let's get those circulation figures
out.
Attorney Cox: Why
don't you authenticate it as Exhibit 53?
Mr. Dubay: I got
it. I apologize.
Exhibit 53, The Rook, Creepy, Famous Monsters, Eerie and Vampirella 1982 Figures. If I can have this marked.
Even though this
is not the Eerie I was referring to,
the survey supports what I was stating. But we can mark this. The statement of
ownership, management, and circulation required by 39 USC.
If you'd like, I'd
like to produce an original, the original, so we can take a look to see if these
figures appeared and, of course, they're accurate.
It appears that
the Creepy statement of ownership,
and management, circulation is a little bit fuzzy. So it's hard to see that.
But I will --- although I have produced the originals to you, I will also send
you the original, a better scan. I don't know why that printed that way.
Everything else is very legible.
A: I'm sorry. Are
you talking to me?
Mr. Dubay: No, I'm
sorry. I was referring to Mr. Cox, if he was looking for authentication of
this. Here's the original. You can see how they appeared, Mr. Cox.
Attorney Cox: I
see.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Mr. Warren, can
you confirm this to be an original Rook magazine?
A: No, I can't
confirm that.
Q: You can take a
look at it and tell me if you're familiar with it.
Mr. Dubay: The Vampirella 104, you can see a little bit
more fuzzy. But the only copy I had was the CGC copy. I'm going to crack it
open and send that to you.
But that's pulled
from Comic --- from Vampirella Number,
so you know.
Do those appear to
be correct?
Do you have any
objections?
Attorney Cox: No.
The witness can do the best he can with it.
Mr. Dubay: I can
produce the originals. I just wanted him to look at the original and make sure
the circulation numbers because he said there was no way to tell whether the
circulation statistics were published.
I suppose there's
a way to tell.
A: I don't
understand something.
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Yes, sir.
A: This says The Rook, Volume 13.
Q: I apologize.
That's the volume number? That's the circulation first appears.
A: No. It says
number 13.
Q: It says number
13 right here. I apologize. It's spelled out 13?
A: It looks like
something's wrong. That means this is the 13th issue of Rook?
Q: That is the
13th issue of The Rook.
A: Do you have the
12th?
Q: Do I have the
12th?
A: Yes.
Q: I have every single
issue.
A: You have all
the issues? How many issues did Rook go?
Q: There's 14,
unless you include Warren Presents The Rook. I know that was a one shot.
But aside from that, there was ---?
A: How many issues
did it go? Fourteen (14)?
Q: Fourteen (14).
A: Do you have the
14th issue with you?
Q: Do I have ---
no, I do not because that's the last issue.
And I'll explain
and I'm sure you know this. Not every Rook had the circulation statistics. They
were only published in the months of February and March for the year. And then
you'll see that all quarterly numbers are included in there.
So it gives the
average of the quarterlies.
A: Why do I think
it was discontinued after four issues?
Q: Fourteen (14).
And I wasn't
asking about it being discontinued. I understand that it states that --?
A: Did it come
out? How often did it come out?
Q: Six times in
1982.
A: Six times a
year?
Q: Not every year,
but since times in 1982.
A: How about 1981?
Q: 1979 would have
been the first one. That was two issues. 1980, I believe that was five. And I
believe --- I can't say for certain.
A: That would be
13 issues. Thirteen (13).
Q: I can't say for
certain how many were in 1981. I can just tell you we have a circulation.
A: Well, when was
the first issue?
Q: October of
1979. I believe it was October of 1979.
A: Well, if issue
number one was October of '79 and 19 --- that means it was published in '80,
'81, and '82.
Q: I don't
disagree with that.
A: Something's
wrong.
Attorney Cox: There
is something --- Exhibit E, just again, this states that the issue's published
during the year were nine?
Mr. Dubay: That's
not --- that's Vampirella.
Attorney Cox: Oh, Vampirella?
Mr. Dubay: Yes.
Attorney Cox: So
this is --- Exhibit E is only Vampirella?
Mr. Dubay: That's
only Vampirella. And the reason I produced
that a moment ago, I pulled it from Comic Con because otherwise, that issue is
a CGC issue, which means it's a sealed document under seal. I can unseal it.
I'll open it and share it with you. But that would give you the full picture.
But since Comic
Con published the statistics, I provided that to you.
A: Excuse me. You
said the first issue of The Rook came
out in '79?
By Mr. Dubay: I
believe it was October of '79. Is that correct?
A: And in 1980,
how many issues?
Q: I don't recall
the number of issues in 1980. I can say that in 1982, I believe it was six
issues?
A: No. In 1982,
how many issues?
Q: I believe it
was six issues in 1982. I believe. You can't quote me on that. I'm just being
as honest as I possibly can.
I think the scope
of the question, I just want to restate it.
A: Even though
that says number 13, I don't --- I can't see how that could be.
Q: This is
self-authenticating. I can produce 100 copies of everything that I have. I
mean, I can have several people authenticate it.
Attorney Cox: The
witness only knows what the witness knows.
Mr. Dubay: I know.
I think what he's doing is he's --- my question was only this, Mr. Cox. I'm
sure you can appreciate that.
Were the
statements of ownership, management, and circulation number's published inside
the magazines?
A: Is what?
By Attorney Cox: Were
the statements of circulation numbers ---
A: Yes.
Q: They were
published. And you compared these. Is this accurate?
A: I can't tell
you that.
Q: What's reported
in here, is that reflected in there?
A: That doesn't
mean it's correct.
Q: But it is
stated in this magazine?
A: That doesn't
mean it's correct.
Q: Okay. Well,
according to the information available to us, is it apparent that The Rook outsold ---?
A: I question
these figures.
Q: Is it because
you question the authenticity of this magazine?
A: I question that
it was 13 issues, and I question the figures. I don't think they're accurate.
Q: Do you dispute
that this is issue 13?
A: I don't see how
it could be 13 because I don't ---.
Q: It states ---?
A: In 1979, there
was one issue. In 1980, '81, how many issues were there? You say there were six
in '82.
By Mr. Dubay: You're
specifically asking me to ---?
A: How could there
be six issues in '82?
Q: I'm not --- oh,
you know what? It's probably six?
A: We went
bankrupt in May of '82. How could there be six issues?
Q: Well, then you
know what I more than likely was referring to was that there were six issues
that would have been identified in those statistic numbers because ---.
A: Those figures
are all wrong because the company went bankrupt ---
Q: I understand.
A: --- in May of
'82. How could there be six issues?
Q: I don't know
that that was the question. And I'm not sure of the relevancy there. I'm not
--- let me limit the question because I know we'd all like to move
this along. Do you dispute that this is an authentic?
A: I dispute that
that's issue 13. There weren't 13 issues.
Q: You dispute the
authenticity of this magazine. Correct?
A: You're not
listening to me. I dispute the fact that it says number 13 on the cover. And I
don't think it went 13 issues.
Q: Would you like
to look at this please?
A: No. I mean, the
fact that it's printed 13 doesn't mean that it's correct.
Follow me. 1979,
there was one issue.
Q: I understand. I
understand how adamant that you're saying that there's not 14 issues.
A: No, I'm not
saying that. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to me.
If someone will
explain to me how that got to be 13, because I can't see how there were 13
issues if the first issue came out in October of '79.
Q: Okay.
A: And then you
add '80 and '81.
Q: '82, this is
dated February of '82. And I know for certain that there were 14 issues.
A: It doesn't
matter what's printed on the cover because that could be inaccurate.
Q: Okay. I'll
produce all 14 issues for the Court.
A: In other words,
if you can produce 13 issues, then I'll --- on the table, then I'll ---.
Mr. Dubay: Mr.
Cox, do you believe the statement of production as it relates to these issues?
Attorney Cox: I
haven't gone through all the documents that have been produced yet. I went
through and looked for things that were textual in nature.
Mr. Dubay: I
understand. Let's lay that aside.
Attorney Cox: Yeah.
I mean, why don't we just get the witness' beset understanding and go on. I
mean, ---.
Mr. Dubay: Well, I
was only trying to narrow the scope to one thing.
Are the
circulation statistics published in the back of the magazines?
A: No, they're not
accurate.
Q: I'm not asking
if they're accurate.
A: Even though
they're sworn to, they're not accurate.
Q: I understand.
I'm just asking if the statistics are published in the back of the magazines?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you.
Thank you.
A: But that
doesn't mean they're correct.
Q: Who is
responsible for the ---?
A: Daniel Tunick.
He's dead.
Q: It has the
publisher here, James Warren?
A: No. He's dead.
Dan Tunick's responsible. He signs the document ---
Q: Okay.
A: --- for the
---.
Q: So are you
suggesting that Mr. Tunick reported these numbers?
A: I'm suggesting
that maybe Mr. Tunick made an error.
Q: Oh, I wasn't
getting that.
A: We can't
disprove that or prove it because he's not alive.
He's been known
--- he's been known to do that.
Q: The only thing
we do know though is that the statement numbers are printed in the back?
A: I'm saying the
statement may not be correct.
Q: Okay.
A: I've known the
publisher long enough to know that.
Q: I can
appreciate that.
A: I know why they
---.
Q: I'll defer to
your experience.
A: Publishers
inflate them because if they don't reach a certain amount, they don't get a
second class permit, mailing permit, which means it'll cost them 25 times more
to mail their magazines. And so they lie. It's called lying. Publishers have
been known to do that.
Q: So publishers
lie?
A: Oh, do they
ever.
Q: You're a
publisher?
A: I didn't say I
did. I said publishers do.
Q: Oh, I
understand.
A: They're out
there.
Q: Publishers lie?
Okay.
A: Some of them
do.
Q: And you're
saying the information printed in your magazine ---?
A: I'm not saying
that that's a lie. I'm saying it's possible.
But I'm also
questioning the number 13. I'm not say 13 is inaccurate.
Q: Okay.
A: I'm only saying
---.
Q:
Chronologically, it should be more?
A: If you have 13
issues physically, then I believe you that I'm wrong.
Q: There's 14.
A: But have you
13?
Q: There's 14
issues. There's one issue that actually ---.
A: I'm sorry.
Q: There's one
issue that follows this, and it's volume 14, and that was the final issue for The Rook?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: The final issue
for The Rook magazine is volume 14?
A: I know, but I
don't see how 14 were published.
Q: Okay. I can
actually ---?
A: But you have 14
separate issues at home?
Q: Yes, sir, I do.
A: Okay. If you
say so.
Q: Several copies
of each one.
A: If you say so.
Q: I'll be happy
to send you a set.
A: No, if you say
so.
Q: But the only
question that was relevant, and I apologize for straying, I'm not trying to, is
that the statement --- the statistics that are published in the back of the
magazines support --- if they were greater than the other magazines at the time
in one publishing catalog?
Attorney Cox: I'll
be objecting on the grounds that that's an argumentative question.
Mr. Dubay: Well,
okay.
A: I would
question these figures.
Q: Okay. But we
just ---?
A: Even though
they were published.
Q: Okay. The
statistics were published in the back of the magazines?
A: I would
question them.
By the way, these,
those numbers, are just for that particular issue.
Q: If you read the
circulation, it states that it was the average of the prior year.
A: Average of how
many?
Q: Doesn't state
how many. Maybe it does, but it says August, June, August, October. You may be
right. Six times a year.
That's exactly
what it says. The frequency of issues, six times per year, February, April,
June, August, October, and December. And if you'd like, you can read that.
A: No, no. That's
okay. So what you're saying is that those figures are an average ---
Q: That's what ---
A: --- or a
compilation.
Q: --- that's this
says. It's an average. Average. You can read it right there.
A: I question
that. At any rate ---
Q: But they are
published?
A: --- that's
neither here nor there. I question it. I doubt it. I don't believe it.
Q: You don't
believe that they're accurate or you don't believe that they're published?
A: I just don't
believe it.
Q: Can you specify
---?
Attorney Cox: He
stated that they were published.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Attorney Cox: He
doesn't believe that they're accurate.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
Perfect.
A: That doesn't
mean that I'm right.
By Mr. Dubay: I
understand.
A: It just means I
don't believe it.
Q: I understand. I
mean, I wouldn't believe it either.
A: I been around
publishing too long to know better.
Q: I can
appreciate that.
A: Okay. So where
are we?
Q: As long as we
agree that they're published is all that matters.
A: Yes.
Q: And in this
document here, the question was simply, according to this ---?
Attorney Cox: Exhibit?
When you say this document here, give an exhibit number.
Mr. Dubay: Yes,
sir. You're right.
Exhibit 52, the Creepy Volume 100 Page 13 Survey. Does
this reflect that Eerie magazine
outsold Vampirella and Creepy magazine?
A: I don't know.
Q: It provides the
statistics.
A: I know. I see
them. I see them. But that doesn't mean I agree with the figures.
Q: But does it
state that?
A: What?
Q: Does it state
that Eerie magazine ---?
A: It's whatever
it says it says. But that doesn't mean it's correct.
Q: I can
appreciate that.
A: Even though I'm
editor in chief, that doesn't meant it's correct.
Q: I can
appreciate that. The fact that it states it in your front, that's what ---?
A: Yeah, that's
what it states.
Q: That's what it
states. Thank you. Thank you.
A: And also, we
have a disclaimer underneath that.
Q: A disclaimer.
A: We don't
necessarily agree with those figures.
Attorney Cox: Are
those ---?
Mr. Dubay: I don't
know that that's what it says. It says opinions. These aren't opinions.
Attorney Cox: They
may not reflect the thinking of Warren Publishing Company and our employees.
Exactly opinions.
Mr. Dubay: Yeah,
but this is --- it's stating opinions. It says before that his opinions.
Attorney Cox: It's
probably close to being right.
Mr. Dubay: The
truth is out of all these magazines, I can show you ---
A: I'm not sure.
Mr. Dubay: --- I can
appreciate that Mr. Warren doesn't like what the numbers reflect, but that's
what they do reflect.
By Mr. Dubay: And
I appreciate your honesty. And we are just about done. I know I hear a sigh in
here under every one of your breaths.
Mr. Warren ---
A: Yes.
Q: --- were you
aware that Stephen King read the material of Warren Publishing?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Mr. Dubay: I was
going to ask how he became aware of that.
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Vague and ambiguous as to time. Vague and ambiguous as to material.
Mr. Dubay: Okay.
All right. I can appreciate that.
Exhibit Number 54,
Secret Windows cover.
Does this appear
to be the cover of a Secret Windows
book?
A: I've never seen
this, so I really can't give an opinion on this.
Q: I'll just take
the dust cover off. You don't have --- you've never seen this?
A: No, I'm not
familiar with this book.
Q: Okay. I can
appreciate that. Secret Windows Page
11, Exhibit 55.
I guess this goes
back to I have to lay a foundation.
Is the title of
this essay The Horror Market Writer and the Ten Bears a True Story?
A: I'm sorry.
Q: Is the title of
this essay The Horror Market Writer and the Ten Bears?
A: That's what it
says.
Q: And it's noted
underneath it, A True Story?
A: That's what it
says.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 56. Page 20.
And this goes to
the question are you familiar or were you familiar with that Stephen King read Creepy, Eerie and Vampirella?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Mr. Dubay: Under
what basis? This is providing him the knowledge.
Attorney Cox: That's
not stated in --- that's not stated in this exhibit.
Mr. Dubay: It
states in a recent issue of Creepy a college
student took a writer severely to task for putting a witch-burning into the
story of Salem witchcraft hysteria in the 1660s. No Salem witch was burned, the
reader quite rightfully pointed out. He would have had to have read it to be able
to state that.
Attorney Cox: You
seem, that's argumentative on your part. Maybe somebody told him about it.
Maybe somebody told him about something in a recent issue of
Creepy. You're arguing.
Mr. Dubay: No, I'm
not trying to argue it. But I can appreciate your point. No problem. No problem
at all. Exhibit Number 57, Secret Windows
Page 21.
Does Mr. King note
that the magazines published by Warren Publishing Company include Creepy, Eerie and Vampirella?
Attorney Cox: And
you're asking him to assume that Mr. King assembled that?
Mr. Dubay: I can
provide --- I can provide this to authenticate it. Here is the title page to
confirm the author as Stephen King.
A: And?
By Mr. Dubay: Q:
Does it identify Warren Publishing Magazines published as Creepy and Vampirella?
A: It looks like
it does.
Q: Thank you. I
appreciate that every much.
A: I haven't read
that. I don't know.
Q: It says it
here. As a matter of fact, if you read a few of his ---.
A: I don't read
Stephen King too often.
Q: I don't doubt
that. I don't doubt that.
Mr. Dubay: All
right.
Secret Windows page 22, Exhibit Number
58. Who does Mr. King believe, at the time of this article in 1974 --- let's do
this.
When was this
written, if you look at the bottom right corner, it seems to suggest ---
Attorney Cox: Objection.
No proper foundation.
Mr. Dubay: Okay. All
right.
Are Stephen King's
opinions expressed in this writing as to which publications contained the best material?
A: Is this a
question?
Q: Yes, it is. Are
Stephen King's opinions expressed in this publication as to which publications
contain the best ---?
A: If he wrote
this. I mean, this is --- this is not written by Stephen King. It's written by
someone from Writer Digest.
Q: It was
published in Writer's Digest, but it was written by Stephen King. You can go
through the title pages if you want and you can see that it was authored
by Stephen King?
A: Yeah, but it
could have been a ghost writer.
Q: You are ---
you're funny.
But my question
was are Stephen King's opinions, even if it was by a ghost writer, expressing
that Warren Publications are the best material in the market at the time of
this?
A: Well, if you
were to interpret it that way, you'd have to ask Mr. King that.
Q: I'm asking if
he expresses an opinion that Warren Publications are the most open to freelance
inquiries and contributions, that they were the first in the field, and they
still publish the best material.
I was asking if he
expressed an opinion, but you think that's up for interpretation, so I just
stated it for you because he actually uses those very clear
words?
A: What are you
asking me?
Q: A very clear
word.
A: Are you asking
if I agree with him.
Q: No. Did Mr.
King express his opinions that Warren Publications were the best material in
the market at the time that this was written?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you need to
review the document?
A: I did read it.
Q: Can I provide
you the original document?
A: No, I read all
of it, but the answer you have to ask Mr. King that.
Q: I'm just asking
if he expressed it in what you're reading?
A: It appears that
he did.
Q: Okay. Is that a
yes?
A: No, that's a
maybe.
Q: Okay. Does he
express that the second choice for good horror material is Marvel Comics?
A: Maybe.
Q: Can you open
that and take a look?
A: Sure. That's an
opinion.
Q: That's his
opinion?
A: That's his
opinion.
Q: Thank you.
That's what we're trying to get at.
Is it also his
opinion then that Warren Publications are the most open to freelance inquiries?
Attorney Cox: Objection.
Argumentative. No proper foundation.
By Mr. Dubay: Is
his opinion expressed that Warren Publications are the most open to freelance?
Attorney Cox: Same
objection.
A: It appears to
be.
By Mr. Dubay: Does
Mr. King identify what the best material in the market is at the time?
A: Maybe.
Q: In the writing,
does he?
A: Maybe.
Q: And what might
those be?
A: Maybe.
Q: Okay. I
appreciate that.
A: He may not have
had all the sources at his disposal.
Q: I can
appreciate that, but my question is whether he expressed that. And your answer
is maybe?
A: Probably.
Q: Probably. It
appears so?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Okay. It
appears so. That's an affirmative answer. All right.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
59, Danse Macabre cover. Does this appear to be a book written by Stephen King?
A: What's the
question?
Q: Does this
appear to be a book written by Stephen King?
Attorney Cox: The
cover of a book?
By Mr. Dubay: The
cover of a book?
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Okay. Does it appear
to state on the cover what makes readers and moviegoers so hungry for good
scares, Stephen King's essential overview of the horror genre? Is that that
what is stated?
Goes to
foundation.
A: It appears to
be.
Q: Thank you.
Would you like to
take a look at the original?
A: Pardon?
Q: Would you like
to take a look at original?
A: Would I like
to?
Q: Take a look at
the original Danse Macabre cover page?
A: No.
Q: The reason I
ask is ---.
A: No.
Q: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Dubay: Exhibit
Number 60 is Danse Macabre title page.
The question is
very limited. The copyright indicia, is it marked 1981 by Stephen King? And if
you'd like, I can show you the original.
A: It looks like
it.
Mr. Dubay: Would
you like to see the original, Mr. Cox?
Attorney Cox: I've
seen the original.
Mr. Dubay: Danse
Macabre Page 369, Exhibit 61.
A: What the was
question?
By Mr. Dubay: Does Mr. King reference a survey published in
Creepy magazine?
A: Did he write
this?
Q: I just provided
to you the copyright of the book. That's shown in the indicia.
Attorney Cox: I'll
stipulate that Danse Macabre was a Stephen King book.
Mr. Dubay: Thank
you.
By Mr. Dubay: And
then the question was ---?
A: I'm not
familiar with this survey ---
Q: You just
reviewed the survey.
A: --- you keep
referring to.
Q: We just
reviewed the survey.
A: It could be a
different page.
Q: Oh, okay. Okay.
Well, my question was only if he --- does Mr. King identify a survey, a 1978
survey, published in Creepy magazine?
That was all.
A: Yes, he does.
Q: Okay. Thank
you.
Mr. Dubay: I think
we're done. Can we take a break for just one moment?
Mr. Dubay: It
appears that my Cross Examination is done, but I reserve the right to reexamine
the witness should the need arise.
Attorney Cox: Well,
the extent to which you do or don't have the right to reexamine the witness is
a matter of law.
Mr. Dubay: Sure.
Attorney Cox: So I
have no further questions of the witness.
Comments