Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Nonsense. This isn't the General Music Discussion board anyway, it's the General *On Topic* Discussion board. And while I personally found much of the discussion of the 2005 suit tedious, it *absolutely* belongs on this board -- especially in the context of an article that discussed it (among other things).

 *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

The use of asterisks to emphasise text has a history going back decades, and is a standard means of doing so online. And given your own... idiosyncratic... approach to punctuation and sentence structure, I wouldn't be too keen to attack HeyJude's.

Andrew -  I have never seen asterisks used in grammar for that purpose.  Looking at an older MLA (Modern Language Association guide; it is silent as to asterisks and not used as "idiosyncratic."  That is a borrowed term.  And, petty.  

If you have some cite for it's use, it would be appreciated. I have seen it used in the context of footnotes or instant messaging.

From wiki. "The asterisk or little star...Computer scientists and mathematicians vocalize it as a start (as for example in the A8 search algorithm or C* -algebra). When toning down expletives, asterisks are often used to replace letters.  (examples are given)   Computer language uses it as a wildcat character.  In linguistics, an asterisk is placed before a word or phrase to indicate that it is not used, or are no records of it being used..."
                                                                                                                                                                        

Seriously, could you take this to the sandbox?

OBVIOUSLY, use of asterisks for the purpose of EMPHASIS is a more recent internet-related usage. I would say you might understandably not be familiar with this, but you do regularly post on the internet and also use emoticons which are, I'm guessing without pulling my copy out, not an approved tool mentioned in the MLA handbook either.

From wiki:

Asterisks can be used in textual media to represent *emphasis* when bold or italic text is not available (e.g., Twitter, text messaging).

Considering you apparently looked at this same wiki article, and also read by simple, clear explanation for usage of asterisks, I maintain again that this is all simply a silly ad hominem argument.

Well - Bold and italic is available here.  

[HeyJude]

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

Thanks to Mr. Hickey for pointing out the past usage of the asterisk, which indeed if nothing else has a more justified use on the internet than things like, say, emoticons?

I use them for two reasons. Mainly, if one is typing on a smartphone browser, it's sometimes easier to use the asterisks than finding the tiny "italic" or "bold" button. Also, to put it bluntly, I think if everyone responded to your posts appropriately, it would be a sea of italics and bold and would probably make people appear more annoyed and adversarial than they may actually be.

Someone here in the last year or so actually threatened to report the overuse of CAPS as if that was somehow injurious to anyone here. So I try to avoid that as well.

So discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit goes in the "Sandbox", but your ad hominem commentary concerning punctuation is on-topic?

Hey Jude - the * was used to indicate a "who" and that is unrelated to an emoticon or icon used in the context of an exclamation point.

Smartphones do have a mind of their own, changing spelling, etc.   I get that.  

The suit is a distractor as it had a conclusion and is not an ongoing process as it is treated, as though it was in the here-and-now.  We are here for exchanging ideas and that is lost when people get bogged down in old news.  There is no reason to question why someone might feel as they do but has become an obsession.    

The point on the asterisks is that you know very well that it's used to emphasize in place of bold/italics, etc., and bringing it up after complaining that discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit is off-topic is both hugely ironic and a disappointing ad hominem argument.

As for the 2005 suit, I simply disagree. It certainly has the potential to be beat to death as a topic, just as any topic can. But the 2005 lawsuit is, in my opinion, a lesser-discussed and lesser-analyzed chapter in the BB legal saga. Further, I feel that suit actually is an excellent companion source to the RS article. As I believe guitarfool and others have pointed out, the verbiage used in that 2005 lawsuit directly informs a lot of the things Mike has complained about in interviews such as the RS piece, and potentially in his role as some sort of "advisor" on the 2000 TV miniseries.

As "law", the 2005 case isn't actually terribly interesting. It was indeed a "borderline frivolous" case. It's not difficult to see why the courts shot it down.

The 2005 lawsuit is interesting as in insight into the interpersonal and business relationships and attitudes of Mike vis-à-vis Brian and Al, especially the "background" sections; those sections are littered with contempt and ill feelings.  

Hey Jude - earlier I pointed out that in pursuing this to find the screenwriter, which you are entitled to do, it may be a brick wall because of whatever happened to cause character names to become amended.  I would love to see that year (66-67) or so accurately (without time window conflicts) reported.  So far, some of these authors have conflicting information.  And, there is still a veil over that Spring of '67 window for the TIKH tour.    

The court shot it down because they had NO jurisdiction in the UK.  The rest becomes moot.    

I don't believe the entirety of the lawsuit was shot down soley due to lack of jurisdiction. If everything other than jurisdiction were truly "moot", there wouldn't have been admonishments for things like the shenanigans with the EBay purchase of the CD, etc.

As for the 2000 TV movie, I didn't bring that up and don't find it directly tied to the 2005 lawsuit. It's simply another little piece of the puzzle. Also, I would reiterate a variation of what Emily mentioned a little while back as far as apparently attempting to harangue either the screenwriter of the 2000 film or, I guess, Mike Love's lawyers from the 2005 lawsuit? Simply put, it's a silly, unreasonable, and extreme demand to make of someone who isn't lodging any sort of lawsuit or specific claim, but rather is simply noting a similarity between the 2005 lawsuit and some element or another of the 2000 movie.

Here's an idea: For those that seem so incredulous as to the outcome of that 2005 lawsuit, why don't *you* go ask the attorneys or judges why the suit came out that way? I'd love to hear Mike's attorneys explain the debacle with the EBay CD purchase, or the "admonishment" from the court concerning the residence switcheroo.

[filledeplage]

 If Brian did not want the band licensed, and he had the board votes, it would not be.  

I think that probably oversimplifies the situation. First, it kind of minimizes the plight of any single BRI corporate member who doesn’t want Mike to have a license but doesn’t have the votes to stop it. It also ignores all of the backscratching (or avoiding backstabbing or further lawsuits) involved in keeping the status quo with the license.

Further, we actually have a bit of more detailed insight into this issue via the 2005 lawsuit. It appears that it was alleged that Brian said he was considering touring with Al either with the “Beach Boys” license, and/or voting to essentially “retire” the name. My interpretation of that allegation in conjunction with Mike filing his lawsuit, and this is just my interpretation/opinion, is that such a “threat” scared Mike enough to try to quash it and claim such a move was some sort of corporate malfeasance in relation to BRI. While it appears these allegations came to naught, I’m sure Brian and Al weigh accordingly the ramifications (and not only simply the loss of their 25% cut of the licensing fee) of attempting to vote to remove the license from Mike.

It would likely be tied up in courts for the rest of some if not most of the members’ lives.  

Hey Jude - that is information I have never heard.  

Having seen Brian in late 2006, Al had a cameo, for the 40th of Pet Sounds.  

That would surprise me as at that time all statements were solo band tours.  

[HeyJude]

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Nonsense. This isn't the General Music Discussion board anyway, it's the General *On Topic* Discussion board. And while I personally found much of the discussion of the 2005 suit tedious, it *absolutely* belongs on this board -- especially in the context of an article that discussed it (among other things).

 *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

The use of asterisks to emphasise text has a history going back decades, and is a standard means of doing so online. And given your own... idiosyncratic... approach to punctuation and sentence structure, I wouldn't be too keen to attack HeyJude's.

Andrew -  I have never seen asterisks used in grammar for that purpose.  Looking at an older MLA (Modern Language Association guide; it is silent as to asterisks and not used as "idiosyncratic."  That is a borrowed term.  And, petty.  

If you have some cite for it's use, it would be appreciated. I have seen it used in the context of footnotes or instant messaging.

From wiki. "The asterisk or little star...Computer scientists and mathematicians vocalize it as a start (as for example in the A8 search algorithm or C* -algebra). When toning down expletives, asterisks are often used to replace letters.  (examples are given)   Computer language uses it as a wildcat character.  In linguistics, an asterisk is placed before a word or phrase to indicate that it is not used, or are no records of it being used..."
                                                                                                                                                                        

Seriously, could you take this to the sandbox?

OBVIOUSLY, use of asterisks for the purpose of EMPHASIS is a more recent internet-related usage. I would say you might understandably not be familiar with this, but you do regularly post on the internet and also use emoticons which are, I'm guessing without pulling my copy out, not an approved tool mentioned in the MLA handbook either.

From wiki:

Asterisks can be used in textual media to represent *emphasis* when bold or italic text is not available (e.g., Twitter, text messaging).

Considering you apparently looked at this same wiki article, and also read by simple, clear explanation for usage of asterisks, I maintain again that this is all simply a silly ad hominem argument.

Well - Bold and italic is available here.  

Ad hominem. Disappointing.

[AndrewHickey]

Well - Bold and italic is available here.  

And, as HeyJude has pointed out, they are difficult to use when on a smartphone. Using them also, for those of us who have spent decades online already, interrupts the flow of typing in a way that using asterisks doesn't.

But you know that. You're just doing everything you can to derail the conversation, for what reason I'm unsure.
I think I may have to edit my own copy of the ignore script...

[CenturyDeprived]

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.
Many are "crossovers" who attend both.  If you saw the Touring Band  and Brian in a similar location you would see the same faces, seeing both contexts.  It presupposes "nothing came before" Smile and "nothing came after" Smile, and it is a window that has "stood still" in the continuum.  

Amazing. I did NOT "blanket" attack anything. I was initially referring to a sizable contingent of the causal fan attendees. Not that you or I have any way of quantifying the number, but I didn't say a sizable portion of the entire audience, just a good chunk of the group people who attend who I'd say fit into the casual fan group. So, a good portion - of a portion - of the attendees may have obtained an incorrect impression of Brian that was presented in the flim, especially if one looks back to 2000 and the first few years following the film's release.

I went out of my way to say that there are a good chunk of hardcore/huge fans who attend too. How on earth does this equate to any kind of blanket statement? A blanket statement is: All fans of M&B are casual fans who all got an impression of Brian from a film. I did not say anything of the sort.

The only blanket thing in this convo is how you blanket refuse to say anything remotely bad about Mike. Just like you ducked my questions when I inquired if you thought it was likely or not that Mike would have been deeply upset that some BB fans have the blanket "parasites" impression based on the film... and when I inquired if it makes any sense that Uncle Jesse being both a producer + Mike's good buddy would have had ZERO effect on how the film turned out.  

You cannot actually respond to those questions without avoiding what I said and focusing on something unrelated.

I double dare you to actually answer my questions. Your favorite film must be Howard the Duck the Questions.

[HeyJude]

 If Brian did not want the band licensed, and he had the board votes, it would not be.  

I think that probably oversimplifies the situation. First, it kind of minimizes the plight of any single BRI corporate member who doesn’t want Mike to have a license but doesn’t have the votes to stop it. It also ignores all of the backscratching (or avoiding backstabbing or further lawsuits) involved in keeping the status quo with the license.

Further, we actually have a bit of more detailed insight into this issue via the 2005 lawsuit. It appears that it was alleged that Brian said he was considering touring with Al either with the “Beach Boys” license, and/or voting to essentially “retire” the name. My interpretation of that allegation in conjunction with Mike filing his lawsuit, and this is just my interpretation/opinion, is that such a “threat” scared Mike enough to try to quash it and claim such a move was some sort of corporate malfeasance in relation to BRI. While it appears these allegations came to naught, I’m sure Brian and Al weigh accordingly the ramifications (and not only simply the loss of their 25% cut of the licensing fee) of attempting to vote to remove the license from Mike.

It would likely be tied up in courts for the rest of some if not most of the members’ lives.  

Hey Jude - that is information I have never heard.  

Having seen Brian in late 2006, Al had a cameo, for the 40th of Pet Sounds.  

That would surprise me as at that time all statements were solo band tours.  

Have you read all of the 2005 complaint? The lawsuit accuses Brian Wilson of "extortion" (their words, not mine) in relation to "threatening" (again their words, not mine) to vote to revoke Mike's license.

[filledeplage]

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

Thanks to Mr. Hickey for pointing out the past usage of the asterisk, which indeed if nothing else has a more justified use on the internet than things like, say, emoticons?

I use them for two reasons. Mainly, if one is typing on a smartphone browser, it's sometimes easier to use the asterisks than finding the tiny "italic" or "bold" button. Also, to put it bluntly, I think if everyone responded to your posts appropriately, it would be a sea of italics and bold and would probably make people appear more annoyed and adversarial than they may actually be.

Someone here in the last year or so actually threatened to report the overuse of CAPS as if that was somehow injurious to anyone here. So I try to avoid that as well.

So discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit goes in the "Sandbox", but your ad hominem commentary concerning punctuation is on-topic?

Hey Jude - the * was used to indicate a "who" and that is unrelated to an emoticon or icon used in the context of an exclamation point.

Smartphones do have a mind of their own, changing spelling, etc.   I get that.  

The suit is a distractor as it had a conclusion and is not an ongoing process as it is treated, as though it was in the here-and-now.  We are here for exchanging ideas and that is lost when people get bogged down in old news.  There is no reason to question why someone might feel as they do but has become an obsession.    

The point on the asterisks is that you know very well that it's used to emphasize in place of bold/italics, etc., and bringing it up after complaining that discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit is off-topic is both hugely ironic and a disappointing ad hominem argument.

As for the 2005 suit, I simply disagree. It certainly has the potential to be beat to death as a topic, just as any topic can. But the 2005 lawsuit is, in my opinion, a lesser-discussed and lesser-analyzed chapter in the BB legal saga. Further, I feel that suit actually is an excellent companion source to the RS article. As I believe guitarfool and others have pointed out, the verbiage used in that 2005 lawsuit directly informs a lot of the things Mike has complained about in interviews such as the RS piece, and potentially in his role as some sort of "advisor" on the 2000 TV miniseries.

As "law", the 2005 case isn't actually terribly interesting. It was indeed a "borderline frivolous" case. It's not difficult to see why the courts shot it down.

The 2005 lawsuit is interesting as in insight into the interpersonal and business relationships and attitudes of Mike vis-à-vis Brian and Al, especially the "background" sections; those sections are littered with contempt and ill feelings.  

Hey Jude - earlier I pointed out that in pursuing this to find the screenwriter, which you are entitled to do, it may be a brick wall because of whatever happened to cause character names to become amended.  I would love to see that year (66-67) or so accurately (without time window conflicts) reported.  So far, some of these authors have conflicting information.  And, there is still a veil over that Spring of '67 window for the TIKH tour.    

The court shot it down because they had NO jurisdiction in the UK.  The rest becomes moot.    

I don't believe the entirety of the lawsuit was shot down soley due to lack of jurisdiction. If everything other than jurisdiction were truly "moot", there wouldn't have been admonishments for things like the shenanigans with the EBay purchase of the CD, etc.

As for the 2000 TV movie, I didn't bring that up and don't find it directly tied to the 2005 lawsuit. It's simply another little piece of the puzzle. Also, I would reiterate a variation of what Emily mentioned a little while back as far as apparently attempting to harangue either the screenwriter of the 2000 film or, I guess, Mike Love's lawyers from the 2005 lawsuit? Simply put, it's a silly, unreasonable, and extreme demand to make of someone who isn't lodging any sort of lawsuit or specific claim, but rather is simply noting a similarity between the 2005 lawsuit and some element or another of the 2000 movie.

Here's an idea: For those that seem so incredulous as to the outcome of that 2005 lawsuit, why don't *you* go ask the attorneys or judges why the suit came out that way? I'd love to hear Mike's attorneys explain the debacle with the EBay CD purchase, or the "admonishment" from the court concerning the residence switcheroo.

Well - others have tied the movie to the lawsuit, and that is a stretch for me.   We don't know why that CD was bought.  It was not distributed.  But, it was capable, because of international mailings of being delivered to the target state of CA.

Seriously, those decisions are final.  I don't question those.  And the outcome is always a toss-up.  You never can predict what a judge will do or order.  

[filledeplage]

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.
Many are "crossovers" who attend both.  If you saw the Touring Band  and Brian in a similar location you would see the same faces, seeing both contexts.  It presupposes "nothing came before" Smile and "nothing came after" Smile, and it is a window that has "stood still" in the continuum.  

Amazing. I did NOT "blanket" attack anything. I was initially referring to a sizable contingent of the causal fan attendees. Not that you or I have any way of quantifying the number, but I didn't say a sizable portion of the entire audience, just a good chunk of the group people who attend who I'd say fit into the casual fan group. So, a good portion - of a portion - of the attendees may have obtained an incorrect impression of Brian that was presented in the flim, especially if one looks back to 2000 and the first few years following the film's release.

I went out of my way to say that there are a good chunk of hardcore/huge fans who attend too. How on earth does this equate to any kind of blanket statement? A blanket statement is: All fans of M&B are casual fans who all got an impression of Brian from a film. I did not say anything of the sort.

The only blanket thing in this convo is how you blanket refuse to say anything remotely bad about Mike. Just like you ducked my questions when I inquired if you thought it was likely or not that Mike would have been deeply upset that some BB fans have the blanket "parasites" impression based on the film... and when I inquired if it makes any sense that Uncle Jesse being both a producer + Mike's good buddy would have had ZERO effect on how the film turned out.  

You cannot actually respond to those questions without saying something either outlandish or focusing on something unrelated.

I double dare you to actually answer my questions. Your favorite film must be Howard the Duck the Questions.

Double dare.  This board is to communicate and not to demand responses of others.  I am unmoved by insults or dares. 

[HeyJude]

Well - others have tied the movie to the lawsuit, and that is a stretch for me.   We don't know why that CD was bought.  It was not distributed.  But, it was capable, because of international mailings of being delivered to the target state of CA.

The court let it be known very clearly how they felt about the circumstances of that CD being purchased on eBay. Their take on it was not that "hey, who knows, it could be delivered internationally." Here's what the court said:

Love responded to criticism by the district court that he had failed to introduce any evidence that Good Vibrations had ever entered the U.S. market by filing a declaration by Steven Surrey that Surrey had bought a copy of Good Vibrations on eBay because he thought it was an official Beach Boys product (“Surrey affidavit”). Because of uncontested evidence that Surrey was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of Good Vibrations, the district court never considered the Surrey affidavit to have any evidentiary value, and entered sanctions against Love's counsel. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.twBNCk5f.dpuf

Mike and his lawyers had a opportunity to prove how the CD could enter the US market in a confusing fashion, and the ONLY evidence they could come up with was, according to the courts, "fabricated." That was the BEST evidence they could come up with, and it was tossed and Love's counsel was sanctioned.

[filledeplage]

 If Brian did not want the band licensed, and he had the board votes, it would not be.  

I think that probably oversimplifies the situation. First, it kind of minimizes the plight of any single BRI corporate member who doesn’t want Mike to have a license but doesn’t have the votes to stop it. It also ignores all of the backscratching (or avoiding backstabbing or further lawsuits) involved in keeping the status quo with the license.

Further, we actually have a bit of more detailed insight into this issue via the 2005 lawsuit. It appears that it was alleged that Brian said he was considering touring with Al either with the “Beach Boys” license, and/or voting to essentially “retire” the name. My interpretation of that allegation in conjunction with Mike filing his lawsuit, and this is just my interpretation/opinion, is that such a “threat” scared Mike enough to try to quash it and claim such a move was some sort of corporate malfeasance in relation to BRI. While it appears these allegations came to naught, I’m sure Brian and Al weigh accordingly the ramifications (and not only simply the loss of their 25% cut of the licensing fee) of attempting to vote to remove the license from Mike.

It would likely be tied up in courts for the rest of some if not most of the members’ lives.  

Hey Jude - that is information I have never heard.  

Having seen Brian in late 2006, Al had a cameo, for the 40th of Pet Sounds.  

That would surprise me as at that time all statements were solo band tours.  

Have you read all of the 2005 complaint? The lawsuit accuses Brian Wilson of "extortion" (their words, not mine) in relation to "threatening" (again their words, not mine) to vote to revoke Mike's license.

I have read most of it.  I have no opinion because I don't know (nor does anyone else but those involved) all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the complaint.  I would like to read the one cited in the LA Times from around 1989.    

[filledeplage]

Well - others have tied the movie to the lawsuit, and that is a stretch for me.   We don't know why that CD was bought.  It was not distributed.  But, it was capable, because of international mailings of being delivered to the target state of CA.

The court let it be known very clearly how they felt about the circumstances of that CD being purchased on eBay. Their take on it was not that "hey, who knows, it could be delivered internationally." Here's what the court said:

Love responded to criticism by the district court that he had failed to introduce any evidence that Good Vibrations had ever entered the U.S. market by filing a declaration by Steven Surrey that Surrey had bought a copy of Good Vibrations on eBay because he thought it was an official Beach Boys product (“Surrey affidavit”). Because of uncontested evidence that Surrey was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of Good Vibrations, the district court never considered the Surrey affidavit to have any evidentiary value, and entered sanctions against Love's counsel. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.twBNCk5f.dpuf

Mike and his lawyers had a opportunity to prove how the CD could enter the US market in a confusion fashion, and the ONLY evidence they could come up with was, according to the courts, "fabricated." That was the BEST evidence they could come up with, and it was tossed and Love's counsel was sanctioned.

Have you bought BB memorabilia from outside the US?  I have.  And, have been asked by others overseas to purchase CD's that were not available there.  I sent them as "gifts" (not taking payment) and was sent in return (a surprise) an outside-the-US CD.   I am not sure if that is a standard, but international mails have changed that dynamic.  The lawyer may have done that on his own to demonstrate that it was possible for the CD to enter the target market.     

[HeyJude]

The lawyer may have done that on his own to demonstrate that it was possible for the CD to enter the target market.     

Except, you can't do that. A lawyer can't "prove his point" by having one of his friends pretend to be "confused" by the CD because the lawyer feels someone actually *could* be confused. You can't fake your proof. They offered no other proof, and the court found that the affidavit was "fabricated." If they had any other evidence, presumably they would have put it forth rather than fabricating evidence.

Separately, if they felt the concept of someone theoretically being confused was strong enough evidence, they would have put that argument forth and avoided fabricated evidence.

I've actually pitched this scenario to several lawyers, and they all agree that anyone who doesn't have a dog in the fight or some huge bias would simply admit that Mike and his lawyers specifically in that case totally biffed it. It's bad form, makes counsel and client look bad, undercuts one's case if they actually have one, and reeks of desperation. End of story.

[filledeplage]

The lawyer may have done that on his own to demonstrate that it was possible for the CD to enter the target market.     

Except, you can't do that. A lawyer can't "prove his point" by having one of his friends pretend to be "confused" by the CD because the lawyer feels someone actually *could* be confused. You can't fake your proof. They offered no other proof, and the court found that the affidavit was "fabricated." If they had any other evidence, presumably they would have put it forth rather than fabricating evidence.

Separately, if they felt the concept of someone theoretically being confused was strong enough evidence, they would have put that argument forth and avoided fabricated evidence.

I've actually pitched this scenario to several lawyers, and they all agree that anyone who doesn't have a dog in the fight or some huge bias would simply admit that Mike and his lawyers specifically in that case totally biffed it. It's bad form, makes counsel and client look bad, undercuts one's case if they actually have one, and reeks of desperation. End of story.

Hey Jude - of course you cannot manufacture evidence. 

But, it wasn't Mike who did that, but an associate of the lawyer who did. 

[HeyJude]

The lawyer may have done that on his own to demonstrate that it was possible for the CD to enter the target market.     

Except, you can't do that. A lawyer can't "prove his point" by having one of his friends pretend to be "confused" by the CD because the lawyer feels someone actually *could* be confused. You can't fake your proof. They offered no other proof, and the court found that the affidavit was "fabricated." If they had any other evidence, presumably they would have put it forth rather than fabricating evidence.

Separately, if they felt the concept of someone theoretically being confused was strong enough evidence, they would have put that argument forth and avoided fabricated evidence.

I've actually pitched this scenario to several lawyers, and they all agree that anyone who doesn't have a dog in the fight or some huge bias would simply admit that Mike and his lawyers specifically in that case totally biffed it. It's bad form, makes counsel and client look bad, undercuts one's case if they actually have one, and reeks of desperation. End of story.

Hey Jude - of course you cannot manufacture evidence. 

But, it wasn't Mike who did that, but an associate of the lawyer who did. 

Well, that kind of implies the "associate" did it all on his own; which makes no sense. Plus, Love's lawyer was sanctioned. So it was the associate as well as the lawyer that were involved (we can't speak to what Mike himself knew; though we can offer the opinion that one perhaps shouldn't stay with a legal team that employed such laughable tactics). It doesn't appear the lawyer tried to argue that the "associate" concocted the false affidavit all on his own. That makes much more sense, because the only reason the "associate" had for offering the affidavit was to help the lawyer's case.

I don't understand the continued attempts to try to shunt responsibility onto someone else. So when Mike is "admonished", we shouldn't blame Mike, but rather we should blame his lawyers. Then, when the lawyers have sanctions leveled against them, we shouldn't blame the lawyers, but rather only the "associate" who filed the affidavit.

I just don't get it. I still feel like Al got shafted in all of the post-1998 stuff that went down, but even I will acknowledge when a legal move or tactic or train of thought was boneheaded on his part. Trying to argue that he had a license and simultaneously argue that he doesn't need a license? A technically valid argument attempt. Also one that will almost surely fail and make it appear that you're undercutting one or the other of your own arguments. And so on.

[MikestheGreatest!!]

The RS article seemed very well-balanced to me.  Props to Jackie!

[filledeplage]

The lawyer may have done that on his own to demonstrate that it was possible for the CD to enter the target market.     

Except, you can't do that. A lawyer can't "prove his point" by having one of his friends pretend to be "confused" by the CD because the lawyer feels someone actually *could* be confused. You can't fake your proof. They offered no other proof, and the court found that the affidavit was "fabricated." If they had any other evidence, presumably they would have put it forth rather than fabricating evidence.

Separately, if they felt the concept of someone theoretically being confused was strong enough evidence, they would have put that argument forth and avoided fabricated evidence.

I've actually pitched this scenario to several lawyers, and they all agree that anyone who doesn't have a dog in the fight or some huge bias would simply admit that Mike and his lawyers specifically in that case totally biffed it. It's bad form, makes counsel and client look bad, undercuts one's case if they actually have one, and reeks of desperation. End of story.

Hey Jude - of course you cannot manufacture evidence. 

But, it wasn't Mike who did that, but an associate of the lawyer who did. 

Well, that kind of implies the "associate" did it all on his own; which makes no sense. Plus, Love's lawyer was sanctioned. So it was the associate as well as the lawyer that were involved (we can't speak to what Mike himself knew; though we can offer the opinion that one perhaps shouldn't stay with a legal team that employed such laughable tactics). It doesn't appear the lawyer tried to argue that the "associate" concocted the false affidavit all on his own. That makes much more sense, because the only reason the "associate" had for offering the affidavit was to help the lawyer's case.

I don't understand the continued attempts to try to shunt responsibility onto someone else. So when Mike is "admonished", we shouldn't blame Mike, but rather we should blame his lawyers. Then, when the lawyers have sanctions leveled against them, we shouldn't blame the lawyers, but rather only the "associate" who filed the affidavit.

I just don't get it. I still feel like Al got shafted in all of the post-1998 stuff that went down, but even I will acknowledge when a legal move or tactic or train of thought was boneheaded on his part. Trying to argue that he had a license and simultaneously argue that he doesn't need a license? A technically valid argument attempt. Also one that will almost surely fail and make it appear that you're undercutting one or the other of your own arguments. And so on.

Hey Jude - Lawyers have a duty of candor to the tribunal.  

IIRC, there were "conditions precedent" to having that ability of using the trade name that were pretty specific.  If they were fulfilled, then, the license would be awarded.  He needed a license.    

[Debbie KL]

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Nonsense. This isn't the General Music Discussion board anyway, it's the General *On Topic* Discussion board. And while I personally found much of the discussion of the 2005 suit tedious, it *absolutely* belongs on this board -- especially in the context of an article that discussed it (among other things).

 *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

The use of asterisks to emphasise text has a history going back decades, and is a standard means of doing so online. And given your own... idiosyncratic... approach to punctuation and sentence structure, I wouldn't be too keen to attack HeyJude's.

Andrew -  I have never seen asterisks used in grammar for that purpose.  Looking at an older MLA (Modern Language Association guide; it is silent as to asterisks and not used as "idiosyncratic."  That is a borrowed term.  And, petty.  

If you have some cite for it's use, it would be appreciated. I have seen it used in the context of footnotes or instant messaging.

From wiki. "The asterisk or little star...Computer scientists and mathematicians vocalize it as a start (as for example in the A8 search algorithm or C* -algebra). When toning down expletives, asterisks are often used to replace letters.  (examples are given)   Computer language uses it as a wildcat character.  In linguistics, an asterisk is placed before a word or phrase to indicate that it is not used, or are no records of it being used..."
                                                                                                                                                                        

I think the * and " discussion needs to go to the Sandbox.  Derailing the thread.  There are at least 2 experts here.

[SMiLE Brian]

American family showed SMiLE being killed by BW making the BBs stare at a doll!

[Ang Jones]

The RS article seemed very well-balanced to me.  Props to Jackie!

I wonder why Mike doesn't give a link to it on his FB page then? Or at least didn't the last I heard.

[Doo Dah]

The RS article seemed very well-balanced to me.  Props to Jackie!

I wonder why Mike doesn't give a link to it on his FB page then? Or at least didn't the last I heard.

Jackie's bit at the end was the most fascinating of the whole piece to me. Screw Mike's book...I'd love books by Jackie, Marilyn and Melinda! Oh dear...no doubt they know where all the bones are buried. 

[Jim V.]

Cam and filledthepage(withdeflectionsandquotationmarks):



Number one at never giving an inch! And not answering your darned questions, 'CAUSE I'M AN AMERICAN AND I DON'T HAVE TO, YOU BULLY!

[Andrew G. Doe]

IIRC, there were "conditions precedent"...

Whenever I see quotation marks used in this manner, I mentally read it with a heavy emphasis, in Alan Rickman's voice. Please stop doing it, it's most disconcerting.

And you just did the same, didn't you ? 

[Niko]

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.
Many are "crossovers" who attend both.  If you saw the Touring Band  and Brian in a similar location you would see the same faces, seeing both contexts.  It presupposes "nothing came before" Smile and "nothing came after" Smile, and it is a window that has "stood still" in the continuum.  

Amazing. I did NOT "blanket" attack anything. I was initially referring to a sizable contingent of the causal fan attendees. Not that you or I have any way of quantifying the number, but I didn't say a sizable portion of the entire audience, just a good chunk of the group people who attend who I'd say fit into the casual fan group. So, a good portion - of a portion - of the attendees may have obtained an incorrect impression of Brian that was presented in the flim, especially if one looks back to 2000 and the first few years following the film's release.

I went out of my way to say that there are a good chunk of hardcore/huge fans who attend too. How on earth does this equate to any kind of blanket statement? A blanket statement is: All fans of M&B are casual fans who all got an impression of Brian from a film. I did not say anything of the sort.

The only blanket thing in this convo is how you blanket refuse to say anything remotely bad about Mike. Just like you ducked my questions when I inquired if you thought it was likely or not that Mike would have been deeply upset that some BB fans have the blanket "parasites" impression based on the film... and when I inquired if it makes any sense that Uncle Jesse being both a producer + Mike's good buddy would have had ZERO effect on how the film turned out.  

You cannot actually respond to those questions without saying something either outlandish or focusing on something unrelated.

I double dare you to actually answer my questions. Your favorite film must be Howard the Duck the Questions.

Double dare.  This board is to communicate and not to demand responses of others.  I am unmoved by insults or dares. 

the point is that a poster who refrains entirely from answering questions makes it seem like they're only there to spout on about whatever it is they do without having any intention having a discussion.

[Angua]

Reading the latest posts on this thread show the increasing desperation of those trying to defend Mike against the rightful revulsion felt toward the wording of the lawsuit.  They keep trying to move the argument around to things like punctuation and move blame around to anyone except Mike.  The blame is firmly with Mike -

Scenario 1 – The wording of the lawsuit was done with Mike’s knowledge or permission.  In which case he is to blame.
Scenario 2 – His lawyers are to blame for the wording and concealed it from Mike.  Mike apparently did nothing when he found out about it, didn’t issue an apology or retraction nor did he bring a suit against them and is still using them.   He may not have been aware or responsible initially but his later actions mean he has tacitly absorbed responsibility for the words used.

More to the point Mike isn’t saying that his lawyers are to blame for anything.  The only people he has blamed for wrongdoing are Brian and Al.

So just give up gracefully - even Mike has the great good sense to keep quiet and keep his head down. 

I agree it was a good article - for once it wasn't a press release to promote his tour/book/record and it has taken the lid of the disgusting can of worms for us all to see what is actually happening.  The wonderful thing to me that he did it all himself.