A. The Impeachment of Elliot Mintz
Virt34385
his own testimony.
Deposition of Elliot Mintz
Counsel for the plaintiff : Steven Kramer
Counsel for the Defendants : Orin Snyder
Witness: Elliot Mintz
The court should note that in a sworn deposition Elliot Mintz testified below.
I. The deposition of Elliot Mintz: [page 7 par. 2 through 23]
# 1. By Steven Kramer: Mr. Mintz, have you ever gone by an alias?
# 2. Mr. Mintz. Yes
# 3. By Steven Kramer: What is the alias?
# 4. Mr. Mintz. Mitch Burman.
# 5. By Steven Kramer: During what period of time have you gone under that
alias?
# 6. Mr. Mintz: From approximately October of 1980 through present.
# 7. By Steven Kramer: Are there any documents that you have in your
possession, at your office or anywhere else that purport to identify you as
Mitch Burman?
# 8. Mr. Mintz: No.
# 9. NOTE: Mr. Mintz testified that he went under an alias for sixteen years
yet does have even one document in his possession purporting to identify him
as that alias.
# 10 By Steven Kramer: What is your profession, sir?
# 11 Mr. Mintz: I am a media consultant.
# 12 By Steven Kramer: How long has Mr. Dylan been your client sir?
# 13 Mr. Mintz: Since, I believe, October of 1986 approximately - - ten
years. [Page 7 par. 22]
# 14 By Steven Kramer: Do you recall ever giving Mr. Damiano your fax number?
[page 67 par. 15]
# 15 Elliot Mintz: Yes
# 16 By Steven Kramer: Thank you. When you need to reach Mr. Dylan, how do
you reach him? [page 69 par. 3]
# 17 Elliot Mintz: I call him.
# 18 By Steven Kramer: At his home?
# 19 Elliot Mintz: If he is in Los Angeles, yes. If he is on the road I try
and locate him that way. [page 69 par. 7]
# 20 At Mr. Mintz's deposition: [page 31 para. 22 through page 33 para. 13]
Mr. Mintz testified:
# 21 By Steven Kramer: Have you ever spoken to Mr. Damiano?
# 22 Elliot Mintz: I have.
# 23 By Steven Kramer: Have you ever lied to Mr. Damiano?
# 24 Elliot Mintz: Yes.
# 25 By Steven Kramer: Can you list for me the times that you lied to him?
# 26 Elliot Mintz: First of all, all of my conversations with Mr. Damiano
were telephonic. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met him. During the
course of these telephone conversation you are asking for specific examples- -
# 27 NOTE: As per the testimony of Mr. Mintz, the record reflects that a
conversation took place between Mr. Mintz and Mr. Damiano in April of '91. This
conversation was recorded on tape. In said conversation and in Mr. Mintz own
words he documents the date of the conversation by stating to Mr. Damiano So
as of today, as of this moment, as of the end of April 1991,". This
conversation is chronologically important and of extreme importance in it's
context.
# 28 NOTE. Mr. Mintz testified to being in correspondence with Mr. Damiano,
one and a half years prior to this recorded conversation. [Mr. Mintz also
testified to being in correspondence one year and five months after this
conversation. A total of two years and eleven months of correspondence between
Mr. Mintz and Mr. Damiano.]
# 29 By Steven Kramer: Now, and I think your counsel has shown you the
spot on the transcript that I am referring to, that I have in my notes. In
April of "91, do you remember stating to Mr. Damiano, sir, "I remember talking
to you very clearly a year and a half ago, and part of getting on the right
track would be never calling this number at the hour you called over the
weekend." Do you recall saying that? [page 72 par. 19]
# 30 Mr. Mintz: I do.
# 31 Second the court should please note that Mr. Mintz's statement "I
remember talking to you very clearly a year and a half ago", documents Mr.
Mintz's involvement with James Damiano one and a half years prior to Mr.
Mintz's statement. A study of the context of this statement and viewed
chronologically is of vital importance in evaluating the credibility of Mr.
Mintz's testimony and will be referred to later in this brief.
# 32 Also, Mr. Mintz's statement "part of getting on the right track would
be" is a clear cut statement informing Mr. Damiano, that Mr. Mintz, believes
that Mr. Damiano is capable of getting on the right track.
# 33 Not only does Mr. Mintz testify to admitting that Mr. Damiano is capable
of getting on the right track, he even proceeds to tells him what not to do to
get on that track. "Part of getting on the right track would be never calling
this number at the hour you called over the weekend."
# 34 Not ironically, Mr. Mintz also states to Mr. Damiano in this same
conversation "So I'm hoping that this conversation will be our last one with
respect to this matter." The court should ask what other matter would Mr. Mintz
have with Mr. Damiano?
# 35 Referring to the same April 1991 recorded conversation between Mr. Mintz
and Mr. Damiano, Mr. Mintz testified:
# 36 By Steven Kramer: But you knew from conversations with Mr. Damiano, did
you not, sir, that he had consulted lawyers about his claims? In fact, when he
told you that, you made comments that connoted some feeling that you wanted to
not have any further contact with him. Would that be fair? [page 50 par.]
# 37 Elliot Mintz: I recall him mentioning to me that he had consulted an
attorney. Once he said that he had consulted an attorney. I thought that, that
would be an appropriate point for us not to have any additional
conversations.[page 50 par. 9]
# 38 Mr. Mintz's testimony reflects conflict: This testimony compared
chronologically reflects total conflict:
# 39 Mr. Mintz's first testimony, "I remember talking to you very clearly a
year and a half ago."[circa April 1991] , documents correspondence between Mr.
Mintz and Mr. Damiano as far back as November of 1989, one and a half years
prior to Mr. Mintz testifying that he thought April 1991 " was an appropriate
point to not have any additional conversations" with Mr. Damiano.
# 40 Why did Mr. Mintz, keep in correspondence with Mr. Damiano from November
of 1989 to April of 1991.
# 41 Even more ironic and revealing of Mr. Mintz's involvement with Mr.
Damiano is the fact that even after Mr. Mint testified that he thought April
1991 was an appropriate point to not have any additional conversations with Mr.
Damiano, he still in fact did keep in correspondence with Mr. Damiano. Mr.
Mintz testified to the fact that he was still having conversations with Mr.
Damiano in October of 1992. If Mr. Mintz thought to not have any additional
conversations with Mr. Damiano why did he proceed to do so?
# 42 Of equal importance is what was discussed between Mr. Damiano and Mr.
Mintz during this period. Testimony reflects that Mr. Mintz's testimony is once
again in blatant conflict: Let's look at this statement once again
# 43 Elliot Mintz: "Once he said that he had consulted an attorney, I thought
that would be an appropriate point to not have any additional conversations."
# 44 Note . The fact remains that Mr. Mintz did indeed keep on talking to Mr.
Damiano until October of 1992.
# 45 Comparing Mr. Mintz's April 1991 statement to Mr. Damiano "I remember
talking to you very clearly a year and a half ago" [circa 1991] to Mr. Mintz's
testimony " I thought that would be an appropriate point to not have any
additional conversations" [referring to circa April 1991] , one must ask why
Mr. Mintz was talking to Mr. Damiano one and a half years prior to thinking the
thought "I thought that would be an appropriate point to not have any
additional conversations."
# 46 One can conclude that Mr. Mintz is not telling the truth :Let us
compare side by side what Mr. Mintz testified to saying to Mr. Damiano to what
he testified to in his sworn deposition:
Statement # 1 Statement # 2
[Circa April 1991] [Circa April 1991]
"I remember talking to you "I thought that would be an
very clearly a year and a appropriate point to not
have half ago" have any additional
conversations."
# 47 Statement # 3 Statement # 4
Part of getting on the right "I thought that would be
track would be never calling an appropriate point
this number at the hour you to not have any additional
you called over the weekend." conversations."
# 48 Note: This "I remember talking to you very clearly a year and a half ago
and part of getting on the right track would be never calling this number at
the hour you called over the weekend" was stated to Mr. Damiano by Mr. Mintz in
the April 1991 recorded conversation." Mr. Mintz also testified to having
almost a half a dozen conversations with Mr. Damiano: [page 131 par. 25 through
132 par. 25]
jake
>A. Impeachment of Elliot Mintz Mr. Mintz's testimony is in Blatant conflict by
>his own testimony.
>
>
Since I dont have time to read all that, whats your summary?
marcu...@webtv.net
Who gives a #%&+!
marcus1950
Nowhere Man
>
> <Nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7v8v5h$cph$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I feel vindicated by the fact that the view of Mintz which I've
> > promoted to this NG -- i.e., that Mintz is a devious, lying rat -- is
> > being born out. (No, the view isn't comforting. But it's ACCURATE.)
>
> you feel vindicated for spreading a pathetic hate filled agenda against a
> person you never have never nor will ever meet?
>
> how sad.
yip Nylon comes out of the box every so often, spouting off on that same
single agenda. Okay, hands up class, just which one of us is 'Nylon'?
;0)
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Thank you very, very much for posting that.
Most of the people in here will want try to sweep the impeachment
of Elliot Mintz under the rug -- it would induce cognitive dissonance in
them. And it's so much easier to just pretend that Mintz is trustworthy
(even if his claims re: John's failings & Yoko's greatness are
frequently ABSURD).
In the transcript you provide, Mintz is nailed for one lie after
another.
I feel vindicated by the fact that the view of Mintz which I've
promoted to this NG -- i.e., that Mintz is a devious, lying rat -- is
being born out. (No, the view isn't comforting. But it's ACCURATE.)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
chocolate jesus.
>
> Most of the people in here will want try to sweep the impeachment
> of Elliot Mintz under the rug -- it would induce cognitive dissonance in
> them. And it's so much easier to just pretend that Mintz is trustworthy
> (even if his claims re: John's failings & Yoko's greatness are
> frequently ABSURD).
>
> In the transcript you provide, Mintz is nailed for one lie after
> another.
heh, you must be almost about to come right about now, eh nylash?
LOL
> I feel vindicated by the fact that the view of Mintz which I've
> promoted to this NG -- i.e., that Mintz is a devious, lying rat -- is
> being born out. (No, the view isn't comforting. But it's ACCURATE.)
you feel vindicated for spreading a pathetic hate filled agenda against a
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"chocolate jesus." <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.yukky> wrote:
>
> > I feel vindicated by the fact that the view of Mintz which I've
> > promoted to this NG -- i.e., that Mintz is a devious, lying rat --
is
> > being born out. (No, the view isn't comforting. But it's
ACCURATE.)
>
> you feel vindicated for spreading a pathetic hate filled agenda
against a
> person you never have never nor will ever meet?
Your thinking is messed up again, CJ. I do not hate Mintz. I do,
however, discern him as an extremely devious & dishonest person. Many
of his claims re: John & Yoko (e.g., "Yoko is telepathic," or "John
didn't know how to go into a supermarket") offend common sense.
The fact that I've never met Elliot Mintz is totally irrelevant. I
don't profess to have met him. I don't _need_ to meet him to see that
he's a lying rat. (Do you think people should only write about people
they have met? Imagine the implications of such a principle for this
newsgroup!)
interstate5
Nyarla...@hotmail.com stated:
>
>
>
> Thank you very, very much for posting that.
>
> Most of the people in here will want try to sweep the impeachment
>of Elliot Mintz under the rug -- it would induce cognitive dissonance in
>them. And it's so much easier to just pretend that Mintz is trustworthy
>(even if his claims re: John's failings & Yoko's greatness are
>frequently ABSURD).
>
> In the transcript you provide, Mintz is nailed for one lie after
>another.
>
>promoted to this NG -- i.e., that Mintz is a devious, lying rat -- is
>being born out. (No, the view isn't comforting. But it's ACCURATE.)
>
>
I don't know if I'd call him a "rat", but he certainly seemed to be a pest and
quite a parasite. I think parasite really captures it.
I think that's self evident to most people, though. In everything he's done,
his apparent self-importance, pompousness (from his ridiculous attempt to look
"academic" to his ponderous neo-Carl Sagan voice) and his screaming need to be
seen as a confidante of Yoko have betrayed his "neutrality."
What continues to be the central dilemma for me is how in the heck John
continually during his life allowed these parasites into his inner circle. If
our hero had a tragic flaw, certainly this was it.
That and not wearing a bullet proof vest.
interstate5
Tom
> Yes. By several accounts, however, Lennon strongly disliked Mintz
>(this is apparent even in Coleman's Book, for which Mintz was a source).
> We should also remember that Mintz entered the Lennon world by way of
>Yoko. Also, John would occasionally rail against the "sycophants" he
>felt surrounded by (I think he does this in the Playboy interview, for
>example).
>
I have seen those accounts, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some
truth in them, but if they're the whole truth, then how do you account for
the "Mind Movies" tapes where were essentially private jokes between John
and Mintz?
My guess is that the two of them had a falling out at some point.
chocolate jesus.
<Nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7vcoof$4ng$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <newscache$hy1bkf$9q1$1...@news.accsoft.com.au>,
> "chocolate jesus." <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.yukky> wrote:
> >
> > > promoted to this NG -- i.e., that Mintz is a devious, lying rat --
> is
> > > being born out. (No, the view isn't comforting. But it's
> ACCURATE.)
> >
> against a
> > person you never have never nor will ever meet?
>
> Your thinking is messed up again, CJ. I do not hate Mintz.
lie. you have stated you "hate" him many times.
> I do,
> however, discern him as an extremely devious & dishonest person. Many
> of his claims re: John & Yoko (e.g., "Yoko is telepathic," or "John
> didn't know how to go into a supermarket") offend common sense.
>
> The fact that I've never met Elliot Mintz is totally irrelevant. I
> don't profess to have met him. I don't _need_ to meet him to see that
> he's a lying rat.
why does it even bother you, you little gnome?
you're a nothing in his world.
so why does he loom so large in yours?
i dunno, it's plain weird.
(Do you think people should only write about people
> they have met? Imagine the implications of such a principle for this
> newsgroup!)
you must have a sad little life if all you can think of to post here are
anti yoko, anti mintz raves.
there has been not one single solitary beatles content post from you. not
one.
but now at least i know that when you get upset you _start_ this shit _
again_......LOL
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know if I'd call him a "rat", but he certainly seemed to be a
pest and
> quite a parasite. I think parasite really captures it.
Yes, the description "parasite" captures the essence of Elliot M.
>
> I think that's self evident to most people, though. In everything
he's done,
> his apparent self-importance, pompousness (from his ridiculous attempt
to look
> "academic" to his ponderous neo-Carl Sagan voice) and his screaming
need to be
> seen as a confidante of Yoko have betrayed his "neutrality."
His "ponderous neo-Carl Sagan voice"! That's a perfect description
of it.
>
> What continues to be the central dilemma for me is how in the heck
John
> continually during his life allowed these parasites into his inner
circle. If
> our hero had a tragic flaw, certainly this was it.
>
> That and not wearing a bullet proof vest.
Yes. By several accounts, however, Lennon strongly disliked Mintz
(this is apparent even in Coleman's Book, for which Mintz was a source).
We should also remember that Mintz entered the Lennon world by way of
Yoko. Also, John would occasionally rail against the "sycophants" he
felt surrounded by (I think he does this in the Playboy interview, for
example).
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
> I have seen those accounts, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's
some
> truth in them, but if they're the whole truth, then how do you account
for
> the "Mind Movies" tapes where were essentially private jokes between
John
> and Mintz?
>
> My guess is that the two of them had a falling out at some point.
>
I'm unaware of the tapes, but if you'd care to tell me about 'em,
I'd be interested.
Incidentally, does the seeming falling out that you refer to appear
to have taken place at (or after) a particular time?
ladyjean
> I don't know if I'd call him a "rat", but he certainly seemed to be a pest and
> quite a parasite. I think parasite really captures it.
>
> I think that's self evident to most people, though. In everything he's done,
> his apparent self-importance, pompousness (from his ridiculous attempt to look
> "academic" to his ponderous neo-Carl Sagan voice) and his screaming need to be
> seen as a confidante of Yoko have betrayed his "neutrality."
>
> What continues to be the central dilemma for me is how in the heck John
> continually during his life allowed these parasites into his inner circle. If
> our hero had a tragic flaw, certainly this was it.
>
> That and not wearing a bullet proof vest.
>
> interstate5
I met Elliot Mintz in 1972 in Los Angeles. He was answering the gate late
at night at Danny Hutton's house in Laurel Canyon. He was very nice to me,
personally, but it was probably because he wasn't sure who I was and
didn't want to offend me in any way. Because of that attiude, I think he
is a very clever man. He was a well known hanger-on (along with Rodney
Bingenheimer(?) and that ilk), but he was a part of the inner circle of a
number of rock stars of the time. He most likely got lucky by getting in
with John during the 18 months or so that he was in L.A. and parlayed the
whole thing into something equivalent to a lottery win, by ultimately
becoming Yoko's spokesman. I don't claim to know the details about Mintz's
connection to John and Yoko and when it came about, but I was made aware
of Mintz's presence on the L.A. rock scene in the early 70s, as stated in
the above anecdote. Today, I find him offensive in the way he talks with
such seeming authority about John, but I have to put the blame about that
on Yoko. She is, after all, giving Mintz any credence or power that he
possesses in regard to the Lennons. I tend to believe Fred Seaman's
assessment of Mintz, as he has said that John despised him. I'm sure John
knew exactly where Elliot was coming from...I certainly did.
--
Jean
Tom
> I'm unaware of the tapes, but if you'd care to tell me about 'em,
>I'd be interested.
>
They're mentioned in Robertson's "The Art and Music of John Lennon" and I
think I remember hearing some of them played on The Lost Lennon Tapes. As
for content, I guess you could compare them to his books.
> Incidentally, does the seeming falling out that you refer to appear
>to have taken place at (or after) a particular time?
>
Late 78, early 79? I'm guessing based on the dates of the recordings and
when Jack Douglas knew John.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
lady...@johnlennons.mail22.com (ladyjean) wrote:
Thanks for the interesting anecdote. I agree with you that we have
Yoko to blame for Mintz's "position of authority" on JL. I also think
it's improbable that Lennon didn't discern Mintz for the sycophantic
parasite he is.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm unaware of the tapes, but if you'd care to tell me about
'em,
> >I'd be interested.
> >
> They're mentioned in Robertson's "The Art and Music of John Lennon"
and I
> think I remember hearing some of them played on The Lost Lennon Tapes.
As
> for content, I guess you could compare them to his books.
I'll keep my eye open for the Robertson book.
interstate5
<ladyjean-301...@dialupd23.albq.uswest.net>,
lady...@johnlennons.mail22.com stated:
>
I tend to believe Fred Seaman's
>assessment of Mintz, as he has said that John despised him. I'm sure John
>knew exactly where Elliot was coming from...I certainly did.
>
The name fits perfectly too -- its as close to "Walter Mitty" as you can get,
with other overtones as well.
interstate5