Moldea: DEM affidavit in Busch v. Ovitz

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN RE PELLICANO CASES

____________________________________

ANITA BUSCH,

)

Plaintiff,

)

vs.

)

Case No. BC316318

)

ANTHONY PELLICANO,

)

ALEXANDER PROCTOR,

)

MARK ARNESON,

)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

)

SBC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

)

formally operating as Pacific Bell

)

Telephone Company, et al,

)

Defendants.

)

DECLARATION OF DAN E. MOLDEA

I, DAN E. MOLDEA, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 years old and competent to testify as to the matters contained herein

based upon my personal knowledge.

2. I make this declaration under the penalty of perjury.

3. In May 2003, I began writing a nonfiction book with Anita Busch (“Ms. Busch”) in the wake

of the alleged attacks against her by Anthony Pellicano (“Mr. Pellicano”), hoping that we could

get the book published, tell her important story, and make money on the back end.

4. Ms. Busch and I signed an Author Collaboration Agreement (“Collaboration Agreement”) in

January 2004. Although we would share the copyright and she would have editorial control, I

would be the sole author. We gave the book the working title, A Woman at Risk (the “Book”).

In addition, we originally agreed that we would split all advances and royalties 60-40 in her

favor. I would work for free on this project and receive no money until we sold our Book project

to a publishing house. A true and accurate copy of this Collaboration Agreement is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

5. To assist in the composition of the draft proposals and draft manuscripts, Ms. Busch faxed

and mailed to me no fewer than 170 single-spaced pages of detailed personal notes about how her

life and career had been affected by the Pellicano investigation. These notes served as the

foundation for our Book.

6. Between June 2004 and May 2005, I sent Ms. Busch four (4) clean and unmarked draft

manuscripts, dated June 19, 2004, April 11, 2005, May 3, 2005, and May 10, 2005.

7. Ms. Busch provided handwritten edits for the first three (3) draft manuscripts, along with

some typewritten material. However, she refused to approve the May 10, 2005, draft manuscript

until I made a single change on page 230, which is the only difference between the May 10 and

the final May 11, 2005, versions.

8. With my knowledge, Ms. Busch then submitted the approved 280-page May 11, 2005, draft

manuscript, which consisted of chapters 1-31, to the attorneys for her civil suit, Busch v.

Pellicano, et al.

(Also, in my April 11, 2005, submission to Ms. Busch, I added a very rough

first draft of chapters 32-42, which included pages 281 to 372.)

9. On May 25, 2005, Ms. Busch unilaterally halted our Book project because it supposedly

conflicted with and jeopardized her civil lawsuit. She told me that her attorneys complained that

our Book provided too much “free information” to the defense in her case.

10. I vigorously objected to her decision, provoking Ms. Busch to launch a smear campaign

against me which continues to this day.

11. During her sworn testimony at Mr. Pellicano’s criminal trial on April 9, 2008, Ms. Busch

falsely claimed that she ended her collaboration with me because I had “used” her, a charge that

was reported the following day in the New York Times.

12. On the same day as the New York Times article appeared, I responded to Ms. Busch’s

allegations on my personal website: https://www.moldea.com/Busch-response.html.

13. On August 18, 2011, I received a subpoena at my home from the lawyers for Michael Ovitz

(“Mr. Ovitz”), a defendant in Ms. Busch’s civil case. I immediately called my attorney, Roger

C. Simmons, and asked him to fight it. He and his associate, Jodi Lynn Foss, quickly notified

Mr. Ovitz’s lawyers that we were willing to go to court to quash the subpoena.

14. In the days that followed, the subpoena was withdrawn. However, Mr. Ovitz’s attorneys

sent us several non-privileged documents from the case. We refused to sign a required protective

order for additional privileged materials. The non-privileged documents we did receive included

Ms. Busch’s sworn depositions of April 14, July 21, and August 3, 2011.

15. I was shocked to see that Ms. Busch had provided my personal and private

communications—as well as our draft proposals and the last draft manuscript of May 11, 2005—

to the defense in her case without notifying me or my attorneys, even though I continue to own at

least a forty-percent stake in this literary property.

16. Then, after reading Ms. Busch’s sworn testimony—which was replete with false statements

about me—I decided that I had no choice but to defend myself and to respond to her allegations,

point by point. I do so in this Declaration.

Specific issues raised in Ms. Busch’s depositions

17. Ms. Busch’s challenge to “three days”:

a. During her April 14, 2011, sworn testimony, Ms. Busch denied the accuracy of a

section I wrote in the May 11, 2005, draft manuscript, identified as Exhibit 16 in her

deposition. The challenged section is found on Bates Label 1442. (Busch Depo., 63:6 -

64:4, April 14, 2011.) The May 11, 2005, draft manuscript stated in relevant part:

The next night, Anita speaks with another journalist, telling him that she should be able to confirm

a really big story about Seagal and Nasso within the next three days. (Emphasis added.)

b. When asked by defense counsel what was inaccurate, she challenged the wording of

“within the next three days.”

Ms. Busch: I spoke with another journalist, but I said that I would—that I had a—I would have

probably [sic] the story very soon.

Defense counsel: So is it inaccurate, insofar as it says “within the next three days”?

Ms. Busch: Within the next three days him [sic]—the whole thing is—it’s not accurate.” (Busch

Depo., 63:23 - 64:4, April 14, 2011.)

c. However, the basis for the above cited portion of the manuscript was material I

obtained from Ms. Busch. In or about May 2003, I received personal notes from Ms.

Busch that included her handwritten edits. Specifically, Ms. Busch wrote:

That evening I tell my friend [the journalist] over the phone that I’m really, really close to “putting

Seagal directly in bed with the Gambinos.” [The journalist] says, “really?” I said, “yeah, I have

three different ways to do it and in three days I should have it confirmed.” (Emphasis added.)

d. A true and accurate copy of the notes I received from Ms. Busch in or about May

2003 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

e. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwritten notes that appear on Exhibit B are the handwriting of Ms. Busch. Ms.

Busch crossed out the words “by Sunday” and handwrote the words “in three days.”

f. The accuracy of my work is further confirmed by the fact that Ms. Busch made no

changes in the May 11, 2005, draft manuscript, which she approved and submitted to her

attorneys.

18. Ms. Busch’s challenge to the source of the wiretapping:

a. On April 14, 2011, Ms. Busch claimed that a sentence in the May 11, 2005, draft

manuscript was in error. (Busch Depo., 143:21 - 144:13, April 14, 2011.) The

challenged section appears on Bates Label 1619, Exhibit 16. It recounted that in

December 2002, Ms. Busch stated that her phone lines might have been tapped, adding

“that it was probably done by law enforcement, but there is a slight chance it was done by

the bad guys.”

b. With regard to this alleged inaccuracy, Ms. Busch replied, “It’s close, but not

completely right.”

Defense counsel: When was this?

Ms. Busch: I said it could have been done by anyone.

Defense counsel: You said it could have been done by anyone?

Ms. Busch: I said, “It’s probably law enforcement.”

Defense counsel: And what was the rest of your statement?

Ms. Busch: “It was probably law enforcement but I don’t know. I mean, it could have been

done”—something like that. (Busch Depo., 144:3-13, April 14, 2011.)

c. True and accurate copies of pages 229, 299, 300 and 309 of the April 11, 2005, draft

manuscript with the edits Ms. Busch provided to me are attached hereto as pages 1-4 of

Exhibit C, respectively.

d. Ms. Busch’s handwritten edits were mailed to me at my home in late April 2005 and

included the following addition on page 229 (Exhibit C, page 1):

“She explains that it was probably done by law enforcement, but there is a slight chance it

was done by the bad guys.” (Emphasis added.)

e. Ms. Busch added a note by this addition in parenthesis, “(better put that in there.)”

f. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that the

handwritten edits that appear on all four pages of Exhibit C were made by Ms. Busch,

including the handwritten notes on page 229 of the April 11, 2005, draft manuscript.

g. I accurately, word-for-word, included the handwritten edits that Ms. Busch made on

page 229 in the April 11, 2005, draft manuscript, as evidenced in Exhibit C.

19. Ms. Busch’s challenge to the Mercedes incident:

a. Ms. Busch challenged the accuracy of the events I described in the May 11, 2005,

manuscript about an alleged attempt to run her over with a Mercedes.

b. Writing this account, I relied on personal notes that Ms. Busch provided to me.

c. On July 21, 2011, Ms. Busch testified about the August 16, 2002, alleged attempt by

no fewer than two men in a Mercedes to run her down on the street in front of her home.

(Busch Depo., 183:7 - 184:11, July 21, 2011.) I described this incident in the May 11,

2005, manuscript, Bates Label 1537-1538, Exhibit 16.

d. When questioned about this account, Ms. Busch challenged the accuracy of the events

and stated that I would “make stuff up, just fabricate things. What I was feeling, what I

was thinking. All sorts of stuff. It was—it was just a constant problem.” (Busch Depo.,

184:2-5, July 21, 2011.)

e. However, Ms. Busch provided me with personal notes about this incident, which she

faxed to me on May 23, 2003. The incident involving the Mercedes is contained on

pages 1 and 2 of the fax, labeled pages “45” and “46” by me, respectively.

f. The retelling of the Mercedes incident in the May 11, 2005, manuscript—the relevant

part reflected in Bates Label 1537-1538—is a completely accurate depiction of the

information Ms. Busch provided me in her notes and subsequent edits.

g. A true and accurate copy of the personal notes I received from Ms. Busch on May 23,

2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. These notes were sent to me via the fax machine

of Bernie Ebbins, aka “B. Ebbins,” a close friend of Ms. Busch. I was also acquainted

with Mr. Ebbins, who passed away in December 2004.

h. The accuracy of my work is further confirmed by the fact that Ms. Busch made no

changes in the May 11, 2005, draft manuscript, which she approved and submitted to her

attorneys.

20. Ms. Busch and her challenges to handwritten changes:

a. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about the

handwriting on Bates Labels 2036-2037, Exhibit 24. (Busch Depo., 190:3 - 194:19, July

21, 2011.) Exhibit 24 is an undated draft manuscript of which the first twenty pages are

missing in the copy I received.

b. I always provided Ms. Busch with clean typed-only draft proposals with no

handwritten changes of my own.

c. Referencing Exhibit 24, Ms. Busch claimed “Yeah, there’s [sic] a lot of inaccuracies

again,” a charge she repeated without citing a specific example. (Busch Depo., 190:9-10

and 194:17-19, July 21, 2011.)

d. Also, when asked by defense counsel whether the handwriting on Bates Label 2036

was her writing, she replied, “Some I recognize as mine. I don’t recognize some of it.”

(Busch Depo., 190:25 - 191:1, July 21, 2011.)

e. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwriting that appears on Bates Labels 2036-2037, Exhibit 24, is the handwriting of

Ms. Busch.

21. Ms. Busch’s denial of the handwritten word “only”; and Mr. Ovitz as a subject of her

series for the New York Times

a. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about the

handwritten notes on Exhibit 24, identified with Bates Label 2037. Specifically, she was

asked about whether she had inserted the handwritten word “only” into the fourth

paragraph of the text on that page. (Busch Depo., 194:14 - 200:12, July 21, 2011.)

b. The relevant typed text on Bates Label 2037 stated:

Instead, she suddenly realizes that the person who hired Pellicano to attack her is the target of

her series of articles for the New York Times, which ended on May 7, 2002, just nine days before

[LAPD Detective Mark] Arneson submitted his report about Anita to Pellicano.

c. However, after the handwritten edits for this paragraph, the text read—with the

handwritten edits bracketed in bold lettering:

Instead, she suddenly realizes that the [only] person who [could have] hired Pellicano to attack

her is the [subject] of her series of articles for the New York Times, which ended on May 7, 2002,

just nine days before Arneson submitted his report about Anita to Pellicano. (Emphasis added.)

Bates Label 2066

d. Confronted with these specific changes by defense counsel, Ms. Busch declared—

even in view of what appeared to be her own edits—“Yeah, it’s not accurate.” (Busch

Depo., 195:6, July 21, 2011.)

e. When defense counsel asked why, she replied “Because there was [sic] so many

people that it could have been. I didn’t know who it was.” (Busch Depo., 195:8-9, July

21, 2011.)

f. At all times, I understood that Mr. Ovitz was “the subject of [Ms. Busch’s] series of

articles for the New York Times.”

g. Ms. Busch was asked by defense counsel, “So when you made the change and you put

‘could have,’ which you said are your words, why did you do that?”

Ms. Busch: Well, a lot of stuff was inaccurate. And quite frankly, there was stuff that I wouldn’t

even look at that he did that was completely fabricated and inaccurate.

Defense counsel: You wrote the words “could have,” correct?

Ms. Busch: Yeah, he could have. 100 people could have at that point.

Defense counsel: Why did you write “could have”?

Ms. Busch: Because anybody could have at that point.

Defense counsel: But you didn’t write the word “only”?

Ms. Busch: It doesn’t look like my writing, no.

Defense counsel: Is it possible it was you?

Ms. Busch: No.

Defense counsel: So—

Ms. Busch: Because that’s not what I thought.

Defense counsel: So it is your sworn testimony today you did not write the word “only”?

Ms. Busch: Yeah. It’s not what I thought.

Defense counsel: Just focus on my question.

Ms. Busch: No, it doesn’t look like my handwriting. And I wouldn’t have thought that. I

wouldn’t have put that in there.

Defense counsel: Okay. So in other words, you did not write the word “only,” that is not your

handwriting?

Ms. Busch: No. I mean, I wouldn’t have done it.

Defense counsel: Do you know whose handwriting it is?

Ms. Busch: It’s probably Dan’s. (Busch Depo., 195:25 - 197:7, July 21, 2011.)

h. Under intense questioning from pages 198:5 - 200:12 of her sworn testimony and

amidst her continuing denials, Ms. Busch also tried to cast suspicion for this one-word

change on her sister and David Robb. She also left open the possibility that the change

was made by John Connolly, whom she said “was the co-writer of the book.” (Busch

Depo., 198:18-20 and 199:13-14, July 21, 2011.)

i. Consequently, the issue of who had handwritten the word “only” remained unresolved

by the end of her sworn deposition.

j. However, based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that

all of the handwritten edits that appear on Bates Label 2037, Exhibit 24—including the

word “only”—were made by Ms. Busch.

k. Additionally, I have located a draft proposal that was written after Exhibit 24—as

evidenced by Ms. Busch’s own handwritten edits.

l. Ms. Busch faxed these handwritten edits to me on February 15, 2005. Her fax number,

“3239394001,” is at the top of the page, along with her initials, “AB.”

m. A true and accurate copy of fax-page 11 of Ms. Busch’s corrections is attached hereto

as Exhibit E.

n. The original text of Exhibit E stated:

Instead, she suddenly realizes that the only person who hired Pellicano to attack her was the

subject of her series of articles for the New York Times

(Emphasis added.)

o. The words “only” and “subject” had now been typed into the draft proposal—just as

Ms. Busch had directed earlier on Bates Label 2037.

p. Another key change made by Ms. Busch on Exhibit E also makes it clear that this

February 15, 2005, draft proposal was written after the undated draft proposal, Exhibit

24:

* In Exhibit E, Ms. Busch re-added the handwritten words “could have,” in the

sentence which now read as corrected, “Instead, she suddenly realizes that the

only person who could have hired Pellicano to attack her was the subject of her

series of articles for the New York Times.” (Emphasis added.)

* In another handwritten note next to “could have,” Ms. Busch wrote, “already

corrected this once before.” (Emphasis added.)

q. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwriting that appears on Exhibit E is the handwriting of Ms. Busch—with the

exception of the second use of the word “former,” which I wrote for clarification

purposes in the last sentence of the fifth full paragraph of Exhibit E.

r. In addition, continuing to explain her belief that “only” Mr. Ovitz could have been the

person who hired Pellicano to attack her, Ms. Busch sent me her handwritten edits to the

April 11, 2005, draft manuscript.

s. A true and accurate copy of page 299 of the edits Ms. Busch sent to me in late April

2005 is attached hereto as page 2 of Exhibit C.

t. On page 2 of Exhibit C, in the midst of a discussion about her June 12, 2003,

conversation with FBI Special Agent Tom Ballard on page 299, Ms. Busch made the

following handwritten addition:

It could only have been Michael Ovitz. He would have been the only one interested in me at that

time.

(Emphasis added.)

u. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwriting that appears on Exhibit C is the handwriting of Ms. Busch. Specifically, I

recognize the handwriting on page 2 of Exhibit C that states, “It could only have been

Michael Ovitz,” as belonging to Ms. Busch.

22. Ms. Busch’s denial of her knowledge of “Mister X”:

a. In each instance of her sworn testimony, Ms. Busch repeatedly denied that she knew

“Mister X” to be a reference to Mr. Ovitz, the target of her 2002 series of articles in the

New York Times.

b. However, to me, there is no doubt that Ms. Busch knew and understood that “Mr. X”

was a specific reference to Mr. Ovitz.

c. Ms. Busch’s claims to the contrary, which include allegations that I wrote inaccurate

information, are untrue.

d. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was asked whether she knew

the identity of “Mr. X.” (Busch Depo., 200:13-16, July 21, 2011.) The question

referenced a sentence on Exhibit 24, identified with Bates Label 2037, which stated:

“The man who threatened her must be [***Mister X], and she identifies him to the FBI.”

e. Ms. Busch made no changes to this sentence in the undated draft proposal, Bates

Label 2037, Exhibit 24.

f. Even though Ms. Busch allowed the above statement to remain uncorrected, she

attacked the accuracy of my wording, testifying:

* [H]e’d just write stuff as he saw fit. He’d put stuff in my mind that wasn’t there. He would

come up with incredible fabrications that were just—it was like, where did he come up with this

stuff?

(Busch Depo., 201:4-8, July 21, 2011.)

* No, I mean the whole thing was bad. You don’t understand. You would have had to have

experienced it and then talked to him and then come—and then find out what came back, and it’s

just like—some of it was—it was just unbelievably bad. Badly—inaccuracies. There’s [sic]

inaccuracies throughout the whole thing. (Busch Depo., 202:6-12, July 21, 2011.)

“Mister X” was my name for Mr. Ovitz in this particular case. Each time the term

“Mister X” was used, I knew that Ms. Busch understood it to refer to Mr. Ovitz.

h. I placed three asterisks in front of this bracketed code name as a signal to Ms. Busch

to decide how she wanted to identify him.

i. Ms. Busch was familiar with my technique of using three asterisks (***) to indicate

that she needed to check a fact or passage. Among other places, this technique appears

on Bates Label 2037 (Exhibit 24), Bates Label 2038 (Exhibit 29) and Bates Label 2039

(Exhibit 30).

j. Defense counsel also directly asked Ms. Busch why she did not make any corrections

or comments about the sentence in the final paragraph of 2037, “Anita rummages through

her old files and is now absolutely convinced: [*** Mister X] was behind the attacks

against her.”

(Busch Depo. 234:7-10, July 21, 2011.)

k. Ms. Busch explained that she did not make any corrections because:

[I]t had Mr. X. It didn’t make any sense who Mr. X was. It’s like, Mr. X, who is that? . . . He just

threw that in. He would do that sometimes, he would just throw in stuff. (Busch Depo., 235:5-11,

July 21, 2011.)

l. Defense counsel continued to question Ms. Busch about this issue:

Defense counsel: By the way, we looked at several documents, including Exhibits 24 and 29 and

30 that were excerpts of the manuscript that mentioned Mr. X. Do you know—you’ve made clear,

it’s your testimony, you didn’t know who that was?

Ms. Busch: I didn’t.

Defense counsel: Do you have any understanding whether Dan Moldea knew who that was?

Ms. Busch: No. He was looking for one of the high profile people to be—he was kind of like

wanting to sensationalize the book the whole time. (Busch Depo., 254:16 - 255:3, July 21, 2011.)

m. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwriting that appears on Bates Label 2037 (Exhibit 24), 2038 (Exhibit 29) and 2039

(Exhibit 30) is the handwriting of Ms. Busch.

n. Yet, despite all of her corrections to Bates Label 2037 (Exhibit 24), 2038 (Exhibit 29)

and 2039 (Exhibit 30), Ms. Busch made no edits to and included no comments about my

references to “Mister X.”

o. Further, on February 15, 2005, I received Exhibit E, part of a subsequent draft

proposal, from Ms. Busch, which makes it even clearer that she knew that I was referring

to Mr. Ovitz when I wrote about “Mister X.”

p. In Exhibit E, I wrote in the original text:

Instead, she suddenly realizes that the only person who hired Pellicano to attack her was the

subject of her series of articles for the New York Times, which ended on May 7, 2002, just nine

days before Arneson submitted his report about Anita to Pellicano.

q. On Exhibit E, Ms. Busch underscored the words “attack her was the subject of her

series of articles for the New York Times. . .” and then handwrote the question, “Why use

(‘Mr. X’) when you just identify him to the world here?”

r. Ms. Busch placed the parenthesis around “Mr. X.”

s. In the sentence Ms. Busch commented on, I had not referenced “Mister X.” I

understood that Ms. Busch was asking me why I would use “Mister X” as a code name

for Mr. Ovitz if I was going to reveal his identify anyway by referring to him as the

“subject of her series of articles for the New York Times.”

23. Ms. Busch’s denial of facts related to Bernard Weinraub:

a. Ms. Busch testified that my account that the FBI told her in 2003 that her writing

partner for the New York Times series about Mr. Ovitz, Bernard Weinraub, was also a

target of Pellicano was “inaccurate.”

b. However, Ms. Busch reported to me—through her personal notes—that in June 2003,

FBI Special Agent Tom Ballard told her that Pellicano also targeted Mr. Weinraub.

c. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about the

section that begins “Chapter 36” on Bates Label 2037, Exhibit 24, the undated draft

proposal. (Busch Depo. 230:14 - 231:22, July 21, 2011.)

d. The relevant section stated:

The FBI reveals to her that New York Times reporter Bernard Weinraub, Anita’s partner for the

series had also been targeted by Pellicano although he was never actually threatened—wiretapped,

perhaps, but not threatened.

e. Ms. Busch called this passage “inaccurate” (Busch Depo., 230:25 - 231:22, July 21,

2011.)

f. However, the conversation I reported between Ms. Busch and FBI Special Agent

Ballard about Mr. Weinraub was based on the personal notes she had given me.

g. True and correct copies of pages 8-10 of the personal notes provided to me by Ms.

Busch in or about June 2003 are attached hereto as Exhibit F.

h. After receiving these notes, I handwrote the numbers on the top right hand corner of

the pages of Exhibit F. Pages 8-10 of the personal notes correspond to pages 1-3 of

Exhibit F, respectively. (I also placed the two handwritten question marks that appear on

Exhibit F, page 2.)

i. During her July 21, 2011, sworn testimony Ms. Busch was asked how she found out

“that Bernie Weinraub’s background was also searched by Arneson.” (Busch Depo.

223:12-14, July 21, 2011.)

j. In response, Ms. Busch stated under oath:

That came out, I guess, in the trial. I mean, in the—it was in the indictments. It was in the

indictments is [sic] when I found it out.

(Busch Depo., 223:15-17, July 21, 2011.)

k. When asked to confirm that this was in 2006, Ms. Busch replied, “Yes.” (Busch

Depo., 223:18-22, July 21, 2011.)

l. Ms. Busch was further questioned by defense counsel about when the FBI revealed to

her, according to the undated draft proposal (Exhibit 24), that Mr. Weinraub had been

targeted by Mr. Pellicano.

Defense counsel: When did the FBI reveal that to you?

Ms. Busch: They never revealed that to me. That’s not accurate.

Defense counsel: Okay. And that’s—and indeed you put in—you have the word “inaccurate” as

well next to it?

Ms. Busch: Yeah, I mean, this was all made up. It was just what he thought might have

happened. It just didn’t happen.

Defense counsel: And you told him it was inaccurate?

Ms. Busch: Yeah, it didn’t happen.

Defense counsel: Where it says, “The FBI reveals,” next to that there’s a line and you say, “No.

No can do on this one. Sorry.”

Ms. Busch: Yep.

Defense counsel: Do you remember why you said that?

Ms. Busch: Because it’s totally inaccurate. It’s completely inaccurate. It didn’t happen.

Defense counsel: Was there any other reason you didn’t want to reveal anything in respect to

aspects of this book, other than whether it was accurate or not?

Ms. Busch: There was nothing to reveal. It wasn’t accurate. (Busch Depo. 230:24 - 231:22.)

m. However, on page 3 of Exhibit F, Ms. Busch recounted her June 12, 2003,

conversation with FBI Special Agent Ballard. Specifically, Ms. Busch wrote in her

personal notes:

Ballard then asks me if I know some names. I don’t know any of them. He asks the name of my

writing partner at NYT. It’s Weinraub. He said can you spell that? I do. He says, “that’s a

positive ID.” I’m shell shocked at this moment. I say nothing. I pull off the road. I just sit there.

If Bernie Weinraub is on that list, which it appears that he is, then it is definitely Ovitz.

I feel whiplashed. My thinking was only one way on this . . . then boom, I’m thrown across the

room. I get home and call my counselor. I need to see her. We schedule an appt. (Emphasis

added.)

n. Based on the personal notes sent to me by Ms. Busch, as evidenced by Exhibit F, she

knew that Bernard Weinraub had also been targeted by Mr. Pellicano on June 12, 2003.

o. Based on this fact, Ms. Busch reported on page 3 of Exhibit F that “If Bernie

Weinraub is on that list, which it appears that he is, then it is definitely Ovitz.”

24. Ms. Busch’s challenge to my account of her 2003 summer vacation:

a. Ms. Busch claims that my account of her summer vacation was inaccurate.

b. However, my account of Ms. Busch’s summer vacation was based on personal notes

she faxed to me on April 27, 2004.

c. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about a section

on Bates Label 2038, Exhibit 29, of the undated draft proposal. (Busch Depo., 240:19 -

242:2, July 21, 2011.)

d. Exhibit 29 states:

Anita goes to her therapist, who tells her that she has a classic case of “post-traumatic stress

disorder.” She tells Anita to take a vacation. With the permission of her newspaper, Anita spends

much of the next month visiting family and friends throughout the United States.

e. In the text of Exhibit 29, Ms. Busch made only one edit, crossing out the phrase,

“With the permission of her newspaper.” But that was not what she contested in her

sworn deposition.

f. When asked if she went “on the road,” as stated in Exhibit 29, Ms. Busch testified:

No. I wasn’t on the road. I flew to my brother’s house [in Texas] and that’s it. So it’s inaccurate.

The whole thing—this whole page is bad, quite frankly. At some point just hand back the

page

I traveled to one place and back.

(Busch Depo., 241:17-25, July 21, 2011.)

g. However, on April 27, 2004, Ms. Busch faxed me her personal notes about the month

of July 2003. This document included the fax number of Ms. Busch, “3239394001,” and

her initials “AB” which are at the top of the page.

h. A true and accurate copy of page 1 of the above referenced fax I received from Ms.

Busch is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

i. In Exhibit G, Ms. Busch wrote:

Pellicano’s trial was supposed to be July 8. I know it has been postponed. By this time, I’ve

visited with my brother John and his family and have gone to my Aunt’s in Wisconsin.

While I’m there, I find out about a movie shooting there, Mr. 3000. I’m invited to go to the

set. I call two editors at the paper to find out if they want a story because if so, I’ll stay and

not drive back to Chicago.

They don’t get back to me. I drive to Chicago. Two days later, I call the paper again. It is the

last ditch effort to get a story into the paper for them. We discuss it. Kinsey Lowe calls me back

promptly and says yes. I call the airlines. It’s impossible at this point to get back there without a

huge expense.

I call the paper back and say that I can’t do it. It was too late in finding out. Sorry.

Instead of flying home, I head back to my brother’s in Texas to surprise my nephew for his

birthday. (Emphasis added.)

j. Exhibit G was the basis for the events I wrote about in the undated draft proposal,

Exhibit 29.

k. To summarize, Ms. Busch claimed in her sworn testimony that my description of her

summer vacation was inaccurate, testifying that she had made a trip to “one place” to

visit her brother and then immediately returned home. However, according to her

personal notes, she had visited Texas, Wisconsin, Chicago, and then back to Texas before

returning to Los Angeles.

25. Ms. Busch’s denial that “ED” is a specific reference to Mr. Ovitz:

a. Ms. Busch claimed in her sworn testimony that “ED” is a generic code name for “evil

doers.”

b. However, it was always my understanding that “ED” was a direct reference to Mr.

Ovitz, and that Ms. Busch created and used the term “ED” in her writings to refer

specifically and only to Mr. Ovitz.

c. During her July 21, 2011, deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about an email I sent

to her and David Robb on January 19, 2006. (Busch Depo., 256:21 - 258:23, July 21,

2011.) The email is identified with Bates Label 1876, Exhibit 32.

d. Even though I did not receive a copy of this email from defense counsel, I did have

the referenced document in my personal files.

e. Specifically, Ms. Busch was asked by defense counsel about my reference to “ED” in

the following passage:

FYI: Jules knows that ED was probably behind the first attack on you--because John Connolly

told him two years ago after he broke from us. Remember that nightmare? You and I have been

through a lot together.

(Busch Depo., 257:9-17, July 21, 2011.) (Emphasis added.)

f. Ms. Busch replied in her sworn testimony: “Capital E, capital D was a generic term

for evildoers, because [President George W.] Bush had used evildoers. So it was kind of

a full compilation for evildoers.” (Busch Depo., 257:20-23, July 21, 2011.)

g. When asked whether “ED” held any significance for Ms. Busch and me, she replied:

“To him I guess, but not to me

I don’t know who he’s talking about

” (Busch

Depo., 258:4-6, 258:10-11, July 21, 2011.)

h. Ms. Busch was then directly asked by defense counsel whether “ED” was a reference

to Mr. Ovitz. Under oath, Ms. Busch responded: “I don’t know if he thought that, but

it’s not what I thought.”

(Busch Depo., 258:19-22, July 21, 2011.)

i. Ms. Busch also denied that “ED” was a code name for Mr. Ovitz during her August 3,

2011, sworn deposition.

Defense counsel: What does “ED” stand for?

Ms. Busch: Evildoers.

Defense counsel: And who had come about with that?

Ms. Busch: I don’t remember.

Defense counsel: Does that—was that a code word for Michael Ovitz?

Ms. Busch: No, it was a collective evildoers, plural.

Defense counsel: Okay.

Ms. Busch: That’s what it meant to me. (Busch Depo., 381:3-11, August 3, 2011.)

j. However, despite her repeated denials during her sworn testimony that “ED” referred

to Mr. Ovitz, Ms. Busch wrote personal notes to me in which she personally used the

term “ED.”

k. On April 27, 2004, Ms. Busch faxed personal notes to me of events that took place in

July 2003.

l. True and accurate copies of pages 4 and 5 of the personal notes sent to me by Ms.

Busch are attached hereto as pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit H, respectively.

m. On page 1 of Exhibit H, Ms. Busch memorialized a conversation she had with an

FBI agent on July 23, 2003, writing:

He said he’s trying to link Pellicano to “ed” right now, specifically when they first started

working together. (Emphasis added.)

n. Describing another conversation on July 27, 2004, Ms. Busch continued on page 1 of

Exhibit H:

I call XX. [sic] He tells me that “ed” hired Pellicano three years ago. The person who tells

me this asks why I am asking about it. I say for obvious reasons. He is stunned. He tells me that

he used to use Gavin DeBecker. He might still use Gavin DeBecker. Now, I am stunned.

He also tells me that a good friend of his said “ed” told him that he was going to get even with

everyone someday—and he was going to do it one by one. (Emphasis added.)

o. At the end of the last paragraph on Page 1 of Exhibit H, Ms. Busch continued

that, after her discussion with the FBI agent, she said “a prayer,” asking in part: “Please

allow [the FBI] to get this monster, and if you won’t allow it, please cleanse his (ed’s)

blackened soul.” (Emphasis added; Ms. Busch’s parenthesis)

p. On page 2 of Exhibit H—part of a separate document which Ms. Busch sent to me on

December 27, 2003—she wrote:

Ed brought Seagal into Warner Bros

Ed made the deals. Semel told me once over dinner

that he and Ed made a lot of money together so although he was great friends with Ron Meyer, he

will always be friendly with Ed. (Emphasis added.)

q. Similarly, on October 30, 2003, I received an email from the email address of Ms.

Busch, Anitabusch@aol.com. In this communication, Ms. Busch wrote:

I spoke to John this morning about Ed and the babysitter. He thought he might confront the

babysitter about Ed next week. I told him be careful. I don’t want anything to screw anything up.

He said he’s been talking constantly to the babysitter. (I’ve known that for a year.)

Dan, I don’t think it’s good to let the babysitter know anything at all. Your opinion, please?

(Emphasis added.)

r. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Busch’s October 30, 2003, email is attached hereto as

Exhibit I. (On this page, I handwrote the words, “before he goes to prison.”)

s. The code name, “ED,” aka “evil doer,” was Ms. Busch’s creation. Contrary to her

sworn testimony, it was her specific code name for Mr. Ovitz—and only for Mr. Ovitz.

Mr. Connolly and I picked up on this and also used this acronym from time to time when

referring to Mr. Ovitz.

t. For instance, after Ms. Busch discovered that Mr. Connolly was planning to write an

article about the Pellicano scandal for Vanity Fair, I sent a lengthy email to Mr. Connolly

on December 7, 2003, which included a list of “some genuine concerns.” Ms. Busch and

I drafted the email over the phone and she also received a copy of this document after I

sent it. With the approval of Ms. Busch, I wrote:

ED: Respectfully, I ask you to forget about ED’s inclusion in your Vanity Fair article. You

wouldn’t even know about his significance to this case if we hadn’t told you. ED is the property

of the entire team. And, in the end, I don’t want our grand finale to be viewed as cold coffee.

(Emphasis added.)

u. A true and accurate copy of the December 7, 2003, email is attached hereto as Exhibit

v. On January 19, 2006, I received an email from Anitabusch@aol.com, the email

address of Ms. Busch. This communication stated:

If JC told Jules Nasso about Ed, then he also told him about the book project between us and

that is probably why you were approached by Jules. But you probably thought about that already.

He's been trying to get to me for the past 3 1/2 years through various people. He came to you and

you engaged him

How can you forget Nasso's comments about what a stand-up guy Ed was in the Vanity Fair

piece immediately after I was threatened?

(Emphasis added.)

w. A true and accurate copy of the January 19, 2006, email I received from Ms. Busch is

attached hereto as page 1 of Exhibit K.

x. In my email response to Ms. Busch that same day, I stated:

I now know the entire story about the Vanity Fair piece (and the bedroom scene in particular),

as well as JC's relationship with Nasso and his attorneys and investigators. I know the whole story

about the Nasso-Seagal relationship with ED and Pellicano, as well as Nasso's relationship with

your former partner at the LAT, among many other things that once troubled us.

In short, Nasso was not involved in either of the attacks on you. That is what it is. And I am

willing to stake my reputation and career on that simple fact.

y. A true and accurate copy of my January 19, 2006, email to Ms. Busch is attached

hereto as page 2 of Exhibit K.

26. Ms. Busch’s denial that the Book would reveal who allegedly hired Mr. Pellicano and

that it would “rock Hollywood at its very foundation”:

a. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about a section

of Bates Label 1960, Exhibit 40, which is a page from our October 11, 2003, draft

proposal that includes edits from Ms. Busch. (Busch Depo., 281:16 - 284:1, July 21,

2011.)

b. The relevant section of Exhibit 40 states:

The lingering question, which will soon be addressed by the courts, remains: Who actually hired

Pellicano “to attack” Busch?

In our book, we will reveal the answer, which will likely rock Hollywood at its very

foundation. (Emphasis added.)

c. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwritten notes that appear on Bates Label 1960, Exhibit 40, were made by Ms. Busch.

d. In her deposition, Ms. Busch described this quoted portion “speculative nonsense.”

(Busch Depo., 283:16, July 21, 2011.)

e. However, even though she made several changes and edits to the Bates Label 1960,

Exhibit 40, Ms. Busch made no changes to the claim that our information would “rock

Hollywood at its very foundation.”

f. In fact, the only handwritten comment Ms. Busch made about this statement was:

as long as it comes out

don’t want to screw up FBI investigation, of course.

g. Similar wording about rocking Hollywood’s at its foundation appears in a subsequent

draft proposal of November 16, 2003. This passage at Bates Label 1979, Exhibit 41,

states:

Through our network of sources in and out of the federal, state, and local law-enforcement

community, we already know many of the details of the investigation.

Also, we will reveal the person who hired Pellicano to attack Anita Busch. This news will

likely rock Hollywood at its very foundation. (Emphasis added.)

h. At no time did Ms. Busch make any corrections to this second reference to rocking

Hollywood or instruct me to remove it.

i. In her November 16, 2003, handwritten edit to Exhibit 41, Ms. Busch simply noted

that we would need to get “permission” to make such a statement.

j. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwritten notes that appear on Bates Label 1979 (Exhibit 41) were made by Ms.

Busch.

k. After receiving the information from the FBI on June 12, 2003—which she detailed in

her personal notes to me in Exhibit F, as well as her handwritten notes in Exhibit C—

there was no doubt that Mr. Ovitz would be at the center of the storm when the facts of

the Pellicano case were finally released. And that information would certainly “rock

Hollywood at its very foundation,” as Ms. Busch and I agreed in our draft proposals of

October 11 (Exhibit 40) and November 16, 2003 (Exhibit 41).

27. Ms. Busch’s denials that she was aware of Mr. Ovitz’s alleged involvement in 2003:

a. Ms. Busch’s repeated statements under oath that she did not believe as early as 2003

that Mr. Ovitz was involved in the attacks against her—and that this was nothing more

than my concoction to sell our Book—are simply not true.

b. After June 12, 2003, Ms. Busch told me in written and verbal communications that she

believed Mr. Ovitz was the person who had hired Mr. Pellicano to attack her.

c. During her July 21, 2011, sworn deposition, Ms. Busch was questioned about a section

in Bates Label 1960, Exhibit 40, the October 11, 2003, draft proposal. During that line of

questioning, Ms. Busch denied knowing that we planned to reveal in the Book, “Who

actually hired Pellicano ‘to attack’ Busch?”

Defense counsel: At the time that you received this on October 11, 2003, was it your belief that

Michael Ovitz had hired Pellicano to attack you?

Ms. Busch: No.

Defense counsel: Was it your belief—did you have reasonable suspicion at that point that it was

Michael Ovitz that had hired Pellicano to attack you?

Ms. Busch: Absolutely not.

Defense counsel: Were you suggesting in this book that it was Michael Ovitz who had hired

Pellicano to attack you?

Ms. Busch: No.

Defense counsel: Was Dan Moldea suggesting in his book that it was Michael Ovitz who had

hired Pellicano to attack you?

Ms. Busch: I think he wanted some high profile person to hang it on, but I don’t know. We talked

about many, many, many, many people. (Busch Depo., 284:2-20, July 21, 2011.)

d. Indeed, Ms. Busch and I did discuss many people who could have been involved in

the attacks against her. However, after June 12, 2003, the only person at the center of

every scenario we discussed was Mr. Ovitz.

e. Ms. Busch provided me with her personal notes about what she learned on that key

date. True and accurate copies of three of the pages I received from Ms. Busch about the

events of June 2003, are attached hereto at Exhibit F.

f. On page 2 of Exhibit F, Ms. Busch wrote that on June 12, 2003, FBI Special Agent

Tom Ballard told her that the LAPD-database information about her was dated May 16,

2002—more than two weeks before she began her investigation of Steven Seagal and

Jules Nasso for the Los Angeles Times and nearly a month before the first attack against

her.

g. After learning this information, Ms. Busch wrote:

I have to sit down. I sit down on her front step. Stunned.

That was before the Seagal stories. That was before I even joined the L.A. Times. Dear

God

it could have only been one person . . . only one person makes sense and that is

Michael Ovitz. (Emphasis added; the ellipses were inserted by Ms. Busch.)

h. On page 3 of Exhibit F, Ms. Busch wrote about her second conversation with FBI

Special Agent Ballard on June 12, 2003:

Ballard then asks me if I know some names. I don’t know any of them. He asks the name of my

writing partner at NYT. It’s Weinraub. He said can you spell that? I do. He says, “that’s a

positive ID.” I’m shell shocked at this moment. I say nothing. I pull off the road. I just sit there.

If Bernie Weinraub is on that list, which it appears that he is, then it is definitely Ovitz.

I feel whiplashed. My thinking was only one way on this . . . then boom, I’m thrown across the

room. I get home and call my counselor. I need to see her. We schedule an appt. (Emphasis

added.)

i. Further, I provided Ms. Busch with a first rough draft of chapters 32-42 on April 11,

2005. Later that same month, Ms. Busch provided me with her handwritten edits for this

section. Her handwritten edits are included on page 3 of Exhibit C.

j. In the midst of a section about her June 12, 2003, conversation with FBI agent Ballard

on page 3 of Exhibit C, Ms. Busch made the following handwritten notes after writing

on the previous page, “It could only have been Michael Ovitz”:

“Michael Ovitz,” she hangs her head. “Michael Ovitz. I can’t believe this.”

. . . . Anita now thinks it was Nasso & Ovitz together with Pellicano & his crew who did this to

her.

k. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that all of the

handwritten edits that appear on page 3 of Exhibit C were made by Ms. Busch.

l. Page 4 of Exhibit C contains more edits by Ms. Busch. Ms. Busch crossed out the last

sentence before Chapter 34 and wrote:

“And Anita hopes if Ovitz is guilty [crossed-out

word] as she believes, then he will dangling [sic] from the same hook one day.”

m. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that the

handwritten edits that appear page 4 of Exhibit C were made by Ms. Busch.

28. Ms. Busch’s challenge to her grand-jury experience:

a. Ms. Busch testified under oath that my account of her grand-jury experience was

inaccurate and that she had not given me any personal notes about that experience.

b. However, Ms. Busch did give me personal notes about her grand-jury experience and

those notes were the basis for my written account.

c. During her July 21, 2011, Ms. Busch claimed that she did not give me any personal

notes about her experience before the federal grand jury. (Busch Depo., 348:1-16, July

11, 2011.)

d. When specifically asked whether she had provided me with this written material, Ms.

Busch replied:

They weren’t personal notes. This is something that I would have told him

Yeah. I didn’t write anything down. I didn’t have personal notes on this. I remember this now.

(Busch Dep., 348:9-16, July 21, 2011.)

e. Ms. Busch further claimed under oath that my account, recorded on Bates Labels

1673-1674, Exhibit 16, was “not accurate.” (Busch Depo., 348:24, July 11, 2011.)

f. My account stated that, according to Ms. Busch’s “personal notes”:

I walked into a room filled with people. There was a court reporter who mentioned that she

was friends with people at the Los Angeles Times. I had a bottle of water with me. I answered

questions about everything that had happened to me as a victim. It was during the questioning

by Dan Saunders that I realized that my phones were actually illegally wiretapped. The

confirmation came to me right there and then. I had to go to the bathroom at one point and I

asked where it was. It was in the room. I had to walk through something that looked like a

broom closet to get to the bathroom. It was hilarious. I thought how poor the government was

not to be able to afford a decent bathroom. I was absolutely mentally drained after going

through the attacks on me. I cried at one point

It’s hard to keep reliving this shit, but I had

to go back and answer more questions.

One guy asked me why I didn’t tell the police right away about the August 16th attack. I said,

“because I was scared out of my gourd. I thought they were telling me not to talk to the police

or FBI.” Afterwards, the jurors (and there were a lot of them) started asking me questions

about my computer and phone lines. I answered them directly. One guy asked me what the

guy in the car looked like. That’s when I got overwhelmed. One woman close to me I think

really understood. She kept looking at me and nodding her head in sympathy. I was really

glad she was there. I don’t think the men really understood how scared I was, but I felt that

some of the women really got it. I told them about being scared in Ralph’s and I thought he

was going to turn the corner. I told them about running in a panic in the Target parking lot

thinking that they were going to get me again.

g. When asked what was not accurate in my description, she gave a list of errors she

claimed that I had made in this section, saying:

The questioning by Dan Saunders that I realized my phones were illegally wiretapped and the

confirmation. That did not—that was not the confirmation that it was illegally wiretapped at all.

Not at all. Absolutely not. I knew they were investigating my phones

I don’t remember anybody asking me what the guy in the car looked like. I don’t remember the

woman looking at me and nodding her head in sympathy. I know that happened during the trial,

but—I don’t remember that. (Busch Depo., 349:1-14, July 21, 2011.)

h. Ms. Busch also disputed the accuracy of my account of her grand jury testimony in

her August 3, 2011, sworn deposition.

i. During her August 3, 2011, testimony, Ms. Busch was again questioned by defense

counsel about my description of her experience before the grand jury:

Defense counsel: Is it accurate that, quote, “The confirmation came to me right there and then”?

Ms. Busch: No.

Defense counsel: Did you write those sentences?

Ms. Busch: I don’t remember writing it, no

Defense counsel: Do you know what Moldea is purporting to transcribe here?

Ms. Busch: No, I may have told him. I just don’t remember; it was a very long time ago.

Defense counsel: Would you have any reason to doubt Dan Moldea if he were to say under oath

that you told him, “Follow these words that are in the indented paragraphs”?

Ms. Busch: Yes. (Busch Depo., 409:14 - 410:5, August 3, 2011.)

j. Thereafter, defense counsel asked Ms. Busch: “[W]ould you doubt the truth of

something that was in your own hand?” (Busch Depo., 411:9-10, August 3, 2011.)

“No,” Ms. Busch responded, “there was no reason for me to doubt it if it was in my

hand.” (Busch Depo., 411:15-16, August 3, 2011.)

l. On April 25, 2005, I indeed received a signed statement from Ms. Busch, specifically

recounting her grand-jury experience.

m. A true and accurate copy of the typed statement I received from Ms. Busch is

attached hereto as Exhibit L.

n. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that the

signature, “Anita,” on Exhibit L is the signature of Ms. Busch.

o. The section cited above on Bates Labels 1673-1674 of Exhibit 16—the May 11, 2005,

draft manuscript—is Ms. Busch’s own word-for-word account, just as she wrote it in the

statement I received from her on April 25, 2005.

29. Ms. Busch’s claims of inaccurate quotes, passages and alleged fabrications:

a. During her August 3, 2011, sworn deposition, the discussion about my work on the

Book continued as Ms. Busch escalated her attacks against me:

Defense counsel: Would you have any reason to disbelieve Dan Moldea—if Dan Moldea said “I

had been provided with personal notes from Anita Busch and I’ve accurately transcribed those

notes.”

Ms. Busch: Yes.

Defense counsel: Do you think he would lie about that?

Ms. Busch: Yes.

Defense counsel: How come?

Ms. Busch: Because he made things up out of full cloth sometimes. And he was also—he just

wasn’t adhering to real basic Journalism 101 rules.

(Busch Depo., 417:4-14, August 3, 2011.)

b. Defense counsel asked Ms. Busch for specific examples:

Defense counsel: Are you aware of any instance in which Dan Moldea had written something

claiming that it was a transcription of your personal notes when, in fact, it wasn’t?

Ms. Busch: There were numerous times where he said that he—there were numerous. It was a

constant problem. There was [sic] constant inaccuracies.

(Busch Depo., 417:25 - 418:6, August

3, 2011.)

c. Unable to get Ms. Busch to answer the direct question, defense counsel continued:

Defense counsel: Are you aware of any instance in which Dan wrote something that purported to

be in your own words—

Ms. Busch: Yes.

Defense counsel: —from a diary or journal entry—

Ms. Busch: Yes.

Defense counsel: —and those words were inaccurate?

Ms. Busch: Yes.

Defense counsel: Which ones?

Ms. Busch: He did it all the time. I can’t specify anything.

(Busch Depo., 418:13-22, August 3,

2011.)

d. For the next twelve pages of Ms. Busch’s sworn testimony—from 418:23 to 430:21—

defense counsel repeatedly asked her to cite a single instance in which I had fabricated

any quote from any of her personal documents and then represented that quote as her own

words in any of our work without her permission.

e. Ms. Busch could not cite a single instance in which I had done this.

f. Instead, she stated and twice repeated the following allegations—all three of which are

not true:

* I would tell him or write something to him about what happened and it would come out like—

for instance, when I was threatened, it happened in front of my house with dead fish and the rose

on the windshield. And when he wrote it he said I was threatened at the YMCA while I was

swimming. (Busch Depo., 419:13-18, August 3, 2011.)

* I mean, he asked me to write what happened to me on June 20th and so I did and what came back

was I was threatened at YMCA while swimming when, in fact, the threat was in front of my

house. (Busch Depo., 420:15-18, August 3, 2011.)

* When I wrote to him, wrote, to him, what happened on June 20th about me getting threatened in

front of the house; how they came to the house, they put a dead fish and the rose in my house [sic]

and a hole in the windshield, and I wrote that to him. And what came back to me was that I was

threatened while swimming at the YMCA. I don’t even know where he got that. (Busch Depo.,

422:2-8, August 3, 2011.)

g. Despite the claims of Ms. Busch, my accounts of her swimming at the YMCA and the

first attack on her were clearly separate events.

h. The passage about the YMCA appears on Bates Label 2097 of the January 23, 2004,

draft proposal. The date for that scene at the YMCA was “Monday, June 3, 2002”—

seventeen days before the first attack when her car was vandalized in front of her

apartment building on June 20, 2002. Ms. Busch neither had corrections for nor any

written comments about this section in the cited document.

i. My brief but accurate description of the actual attack on June 20, 2002, appears on

Bates Label 2108 of that same draft proposal—once again, with no corrections or

comments from Ms. Busch. And the full and accurate account of the vandalism—in front

of her home, also with the correct date—appears in the approved May 11, 2005, draft

manuscript (Exhibit 16).

30. Ms. Busch’s challenge to my report of an email exchange with John Montorio:

a. On August 3, 2011, Ms. Busch was questioned about an email exchange—on Bates

Label 1675 of the May 11, 2005, draft manuscript (Exhibit 16)—that she had with John

Montorio, an editor at the Los Angeles Times on May 16, 2003:

Defense counsel: You see there is a footnote that says, ‘Email from Anita Busch to John

Montorio”?

Ms. Busch: Yeah, that is probably what he did. I don’t know.

Defense counsel: Do you know if he accurately transcribed that e-mail?

Ms. Busch: No, I have no idea.

Defense counsel: Any reason to doubt it?

Ms. Busch: Yes.

Defense counsel: That e-mail?

Ms. Busch: There is a reason to doubt everything he did.

Defense counsel: Well, come on. Let’s be fair to him.

Ms. Busch: I am being fair. (Busch Depo., 431:20 - 432:7, August 3, 2011.)

b. This section about the Busch-Montorio email exchange, which I footnoted, is an

accurate recitation of the documents which Ms. Busch provided me.

c. True and accurate copies of the emails provided to me by Ms. Busch are attached

hereto as Exhibit M.

d. These communications appeared in the May 11, 2005, draft manuscript, Exhibit 16,

which Ms. Busch had approved and sent to the attorneys in her civil case.

31. Ms. Busch’s denial of Mr. Ovitz’s belief of a Busch-Weinraub conspiracy against him:

a. Ms. Busch testified under oath that she had no knowledge of my reason for writing

that Mr. Ovitz suspected that she and Bernie Weinraub were conspiring against him.

b. However, I wrote that Mr. Ovitz had these suspicions about a Busch-Weinraub

conspiracy after I received a personal, handwritten note that Ms. Busch faxed to me.

c. Ms. Busch was questioned by defense counsel about a statement I had made on Bates

Label 1506 of Exhibit 16—the May 11, 2005, draft manuscript—which read:

Among all of the media people who have written about his demise, Ovitz singled out Bernie

Weinraub and Anita for their New York Times series, alleging that they were part of an organized

conspiracy to get him. (Busch Depo., 446:7-11, August 3, 2011.) (Emphasis added.)

d. Asked to respond to what I had written, Ms. Busch replied, “I don’t know where it is

from. I don’t think he knows where it is from.” (Busch Depo., 446:15-16, August 3,

2011.)

e. The source of my information is a personal, handwritten note from Ms. Busch which

she faxed to me on October 19, 2003. In that communication, Ms. Busch wrote:

During the series, Ovitz personally flew into N.Y. & met with Times editors trying to get

[crossed out word] Weinraub fired. It wasn’t the 1st time he tried to get Weinraub fired.

In the end Ovitz blamed Busch & Weinraub for his demise.

Ovitz later [word unknown]them as part of a gay mafia bent out to destroy him & drive

him out of Hollywood. (Emphasis added.)

f. A true and accurate copy of this page is attached hereto as Exhibit N.

g. Based on my knowledge of Ms. Busch’s handwriting, it is my opinion that the

handwritten note on Exhibit N was written by Ms. Busch.