DECLARATION OF PAT LYONS

I, Pat Lyons, declare:

1. I was attorney of record for Harlan Ellison who was a defendant in the case styled Fleisher v. Fantagraphics, Inc., et al. I make this declaration in support of Mr. Ellison’s Opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike certain allegations of defamation in the present case styled Ellison v. Fantagraphics, Inc. et al. The foregoing statements are made of my own personal knowledge and, if called to testify in court, I could and would competently do so.

2. From the time of my entry into the case, Harlan Ellison was completely responsible in every way regarding the management of his financial resources in relationship to that case. He did not fail to cooperate with me in payment of fees or costs. I was never informed by any other counsel who may have represented Ellison in connection with the case that he had ever tried to engage in any wrongful non-payment of fees or costs.

3. In fact, an insurance company, Fireman’s Fund, paid for the legal fees and costs incurred by Ellison from the time of my involvement with the case until its conclusion.

4. I am unaware of any circumstance in the case where Mr. Ellison was found in contempt of court and as a result “was about to be arrested” by anyone.

5. I futher wish to address the assertion of Gary Groth that, “Ellison’s conduct during the litigation alienated the judge, the magistrate judge, our own counsel, and me.” Mr. Groth cannot possibly speak for the Court or its officers regarding any “alienation” caused by alleged conduct of Mr. Ellison, or for me. I did not perceive the judge or the magistrate judge to be “alienated” by Mr. Ellison. In fact, I recall based on my observation

that the Magistrate Judge in that case rather liked Mr. Ellison personally. I certainly was never “alienated” by Mr. Ellison. In fact, in my judgment, it was largely because of the trial testimony of Ellison that the defense prevailed in the case. Mr. Ellison was one of the best witnesses I ever had in any case I was involved with.

6. In addition, Groth states that Groth “had to watch our co-defendant [Ellison] as closely as we watched [the plaintiff] Fleischer” – nothing could be further from the truth. Groth, Thompson and Fantagraphics continued throughout the course of that litigation to hurl insults and antagonistic public statements the way of the plaintiff, Fleischer, inflaming and excacerbating the situation. I remember a judicial determination by the late Judge Broderick that the continuing, antagonistic conduct of Groth, Thompson and Fantagraphics during the course of the litigation was or would be enough to substantiate a showing of malice. Thus, contrary to Groth’s mischaracterization of the events, it was Ellison who provided stability and ultimately – convincing testimony – to stave off a verdict for the plaintiff.

7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of November 2006 at New York, New York.

________________________

PAT LYONS