The Smiley Smile Message Board

“And as for the lawsuit Mike brought against Brian claiming he was deserving of 50% of the royalties from the songs, I know there were shenanigans that took place in that trial that hopefully will see the light of day in the future. I gave Brian all the ammunition he would need to undo the wrong done him when I was deposed at length in AUG 2006 in connection with the Jardine-Love case. I feel that Brian was royally screwed by Mike and his highly effective lawyers. They really snowed that gullible jury. What a travesty that whole thing was. I believe it is one of the biggest injustices ever to occur in the history of pop music!” 

-Steve Love, 
July 10, 2012

“Wait till Mike-y gets an earful of the "SMOKING GUN TAPE"... where Stan tapes he and I talking about...WHO LIED BEST IN COURT FOR... MIKE”

-Rocky Pamplin
March 15, 2016

“YES, THE SMOKING GUN TAPE IS of Stan AND me (It's called "PROOF") Stan doesn't really love Mike-y... or he would NEVER HAVE TAPED THIS CONVERSATION... AND THEN GIVEN IT TO STEPHEN! Unless, OF COURSE, he was STUPID!”

-Rocky Pamplin
March 16, 2016

This is huge. These are two people with previous deep involvement with the band who are claiming that “shenanigans” and lying took place during one of the most well known and talked about lawsuits in rock-n-roll history. Rocky Pamplin’s outlandish thread has veered across the spectrum seemingly between reality and fiction…Yet this is at least one story from his thread that appears to be corroborated by a knowledgable and credible person directly related to Mike Love and the Beach Boys band.

If this is all a ruse, then this topic is put to rest for good. But if it’s true, this could turn out to be one of the most mind-blowing stories in this band’s history (and to me it makes it fairly obvious why the usual Club Kokomo crowd is out trying to stop this story from gaining traction - any distraction will probably be used to distract from this story). For those of us who actually care about the truth and want to inspect all the angles, whats the harm in delving further into these substantial claims?

- Is Steve Love a credible source?
- Why bring these accusations up now?
- If these accusations turn out to be true, what are the ramifications?

This is what I found stunning about the whole thread.  I am an "outsider" when it came to the business meetings, etc. (exactly the way Brian wanted it, so I am grateful to him), so I can't speak with any authority in this area. 

I saw Steve Love as an intern to Nick Grillo in 69-70.  He was obviously their manager for a crucial period of time.  There seems to have been a conviction, followed by an exoneration.  I don't know what any of that means, but I am genuinely curious about what the man has to say.  He was a very bright guy in ancient times when I saw him everyday for awhile.

The answer to the second question has to be to do with the publicity about to surround Mike's book, Brian's book, the Pet Sounds anniversary, GV's 50th, and even the tail end of the C50 fallout.

If these guys don't put this in the public domain now, they'll never have such an attention-grabbing opportunity again, and the chance to profit from it will have gone forever. I suspect profit is a stronger incentive here than "the truth" or a desire to forge a fresh career as an author or chat show guest.

So have you spoken to either of them personally?  I haven't in many decades.  So, I don't know anything about their motives, nor would I speculate, because then again, I'm back in a treacherous area, don't you think?  It seems like 2012 would have been the best time to profit from all this, but then again, I'm speculating.  

I'm thinking - Stephen, as a bright guy wouldn't have posted that first comment some time ago unless he believed that he had a reasonable case.  Why would he risk a libel suit?  That's why this all makes me so curious..

If pamplin would quit with the insults, and the overall prickish attitude, I might be more willing to humor him and listen to what he has to say.  I keep thinking that maybe, just maybe he might have something that we might want to read.

You're quite right Debbie, I am speculating and I had t spoken to either.

I wish though that this information, that seems to have been withheld, had been offered to the proper authorities at the time. I'm curious to find out why it's been sat upon for so long.

deleted

We need a date - approximate will do - for this tape.

Again, I have no idea about the timing.  I just find Stephen's position unique - he was the BBs manager tasked with serving their interests for a number of years.  At the same time, he was in the position of observing Brian's situation.  As to the timeliness of all of this, obviously I wish bright people who had some authority had acted in Brian's interests many years ago, as I've indicated in the Rocky thread.  Brian needed better doctors and representation a very long time ago.  Was Stephen in a position to make that happen?  I don't know.  I'm thinking he had many masters at that point.

I don't know why people have to get hung up on an insider's attitude to the point of not even reading what they have to say, if they do have some kernels of knowledge and previously-unknown/unheard information to bring to the table. Why squander a chance at information coming out just because the guy throws Andrew Dice Clay-like insults out here and there?  

And regarding Steve, I would tend to think that a brother of one of the main songwriters of the Beach Boys is as believable a source as another brother of one of the main songwriters the Beach Boys, that being Carl or Dennis. What reason would any of them, past or present, have to completely fabricate entire events about their brother out of thin air?

Emily, these are undeniably serious allegations…as Debbie wrote, it puts someone in serious risk of a libel suit. There is obviously motive here that goes deeper than some sort of attention seeking behavior.

Steve Love gave testimony in a deposition in 2006 that apparently proves that shenanigans took place during the songwriting trial. What Rocky Pamplin recently wrote (10 years after that deposition) seemingly corroborates with that testimony. And given what we’ve learned in recent weeks (the blatant untruths in Mike’s 2005 lawsuit), I think these claims deserve to be looked at more closely….given there is an obvious pattern of “shenanigans” and lying in these lawsuits.

And agreed 100%, CenturyDeprived.

deleted

Should we be surprised that Mike may have done some tricks during the 1994 lawsuit?

The decades of resentment and anger built up to the point where Mike saw BW's huge financial settlement and went into for a major payday. One last score from the "golden goose" even after kokomo's success.

*awaits 15 pages of filleplage derailment*  

Why dredge this up again?  This case was  litigated in court and reached a conclusion.  Each side had an opportunity to present their case and a decision was reached.  You're just spinning wheels rehashing all of this stuff.  And for whatever it's worth, wasn't Steve Love a convicted felon at some point?

deleted

Playing Devil's Advocate here... assuming this tape really is that explosive and it was recorded circa 2005/6... why has no-one made use of it in the last ten years ?

And don't forget that myKe luHv is a greedy opportunist who believes there's still time to fleece Brian for one thing or another. I wouldn't trust the greedster as far as I could pick him up and throw him. Would luHv to see his ass hauled into court over this.  >:D

This is interesting, as my credibility was recently challenged/attacked on another site.  Happily, I was backed up a few days later by someone respected there.  I appreciated the people giving me the benefit of the doubt in the mean time.  I'm not certain anyone is "giving" Stephen credibility.  We're curious as to what further he has to say; thus, the question of this thread.

On the same token, I think to imagine that a close family relative (presumably a person without deep pockets) would go out of their way to concoct some convoluted story that is completely fabricated, of absolutely zero truth whatsoever, is just as farfetched. I cannot fathom how risky and truly stupid a move it would be for a brother to publicly make such claims if they had no validity to them whatsoever. That said, certainly we should think critically about peoples’ motivations, and not just necessarily believe every single word verbatim without considering what could be opposing viewpoints. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Even if that’s the case, and if the accusations turn out to be party true, I would imagine it would still not be pretty.

As I haven't been following the Rocky thread too closely I had no idea there were people saying "X is true because Rocky said so" - I too think that is a very illogical mindset to have.


Uhh, because there is one person who claims to have lied in a court of law for that suit in the prosecutors favor...so the conclusion reached for that suit was possibly based on lies. Let's keep in mind that this lawsuit is one of the most famous lawsuits in rock-n-roll history. So I'm not "spinning wheels", just trying to get people to focus on finding the truth...no matter what the truth is.

Is Rocky credible when he makes a lone statement? Based on what I have read, not at all. Is he more credible when the brother of Mike Love and former Beach Boys manager Steve Love corroborates his story? Most definitely. Is he more credible when we know there is a pattern and history of untruths in Mike Love lawsuits? Hell yes.

The only thing I am saying is that it deserves a deeper look. These are serious allegations and we shouldn't take them for fact, but we also shouldn't dismiss them.

As for him being a felon, Steve Love was fully exonerated in 1996.


Here's another question: assuming this tape isn't real, why on earth would Steve Love and Rocky Pamplin make libelous claims about one of the most notoriously litigious people in the entertainment business? That is suicide. Debbie KL says Steve was a bright person back in the day, and considering his posts on the ManvsClown blog, I'd have to say he is still bright. I can't imagine why he would lie publicly about shenanigans that took place.

Btw, curious how you know the tape was recorded circa 2005/6??

deleted

deleted

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.

edit: here's a link to the post about the embezzlement: https://manvsclown.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/why-i-hate-mike-love/#comment-6171

This is why I think finding the truth about things is very important on this forum (which is why I would hope people would be more interested in this exact topic). I've seen too much sh*t go down in recent years (having to do with false information, supposedly reliable sources, and other nonsense) that I rarely believe anything I'm told on this or other forums anymore. And there's good reason for that.

Finding the truth, doing your own investigations, using obvious evidence to come to logical conclusions - this is something everyone on this board should do. Otherwise we end up believing that people like Steve embezzled money based on what we're told in a PM or elsewhere.

I'm not at all ready to say that Stephen isn't a credible source, as I've only seen the one direct quote from him.  I don't know anything about his sentencing and subsequent exoneration, beyond the fact that the exoneration was the end conclusion.  Personally, I appreciated the benefit of the doubt until I was proven to be "credible."

deleted

Your mentions of untruths in the 2005 lawsuit: possibly a dubious deduction on my part.

Maybe the question should not be "is Steve Love a credible source ?" but "is Rocky Pamplin a credible conduit ?" By his own admission he's prone to "poetic license". Or as my father would call it, lying.

deleted

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?

Thanks, I'm not a viper.  My real comparison was just "benefit of the doubt" until we have more information.

I agree with Debbie, and I'll also add that it's possible for someone to be revenge-minded or profit-minded, and for that same someone to also be credible and have inside information about a topic. Those are not mutually exclusive attributes.  

If Stephen and/or Rocky deduced that they could somehow have maximum impact in some fashion, whether that be revenge, monetary gain, or whatever, and waited until the moment when they'd gain the most publicity possible, that may make them "jerks" or worse in some peoples' minds, but IMHO that in and of itself says nothing about their credibility (or lack thereof), or the fact that it seems absurd that they'd make major allegations up out of thin air, directed at a person who is likely the most litigious person they personally know. That right there is the hardest thing to believe, even if compared to the entirety of the Rocky thread... and I've yet to see anyone even attempt to propose a theory that could logically make that scenario "fit". I imagine FDP has an app for that though.

Exactly! No one described as a bright person would back themselves into such a corner unless they had the evidence to back up such a claim. Especially when their claim goes fully against one of the most notoriously known litigious prone people in the entertainment business.


It's not just Pamplin we're talking about. Steve Love, brother of Mike and former Beach Boys manager, made a similar admission of known shenanigans. He testified in a deposition back in 2006 that shady stuff went on - he didn't admit this stuff for attention, or money - he was just testifying the truth. Rocky claims there is a tape that proves lying took place during the songwriting lawsuit. Then we see the 2005 lawsuit makes outlandish claims about Brian's involvement in the band post '67, as well as bringing forth a fake witness...showing that shenanigans aren't outside the norm when it comes to Mike Love lawsuits. All of that evidence stacked up is pretty damning. Again, I'm not saying the accusations are true. But they deserve to be looked at more closely.

deleted

I might add that it seems that Steve has been making posts on that man vs. clown site for some time now. That site's been up for years in fact. For those wondering why it's taken so long for this to come out (if the tapes were recorded years back) as it seems it will come out in further detail in Rocky's book, perhaps Steve was putting out test feelers for awhile on that site, bit by bit, to see what (if any) legal retribution would happen to him if he were to drop hints about an allegation he had information about, before going forward with making the details more widely known. That would not seem an implausible scenario to me. For whatever differences they have, the Love brothers would seem to have the "wait for the right moment to strike for maximum impact" thing in common.

This scenario I could see as being not out of the question.

Sorry.  I think as you said to a previous poster, this is a question of semantics.  I can't say that I have any proof that Stephen is a liar at this point, that's all.  We'd have to see all the information and hear from the other side to determine that fairly.  Does he have biases?  Of course, as would nearly any other person making claims.  I agree there.

The lawsuit brought forth by Mike Love himself in 2005 shows he puts profit over ethics - so based on this logic I guess we can assume that his credibility goes down the tubes as well? And I guess that makes his claims in the songwriting credits case not credible?

Also, I don't think anyone is eager to believe Steve or Rocky. I've said time and time again that the truth hasn't been found yet, and that it should be sought out - no matter what the outcome. Credibility or no credibility, these are serious allegations surrounded by a history of shady lawsuit tactics, and no matter what the truth is, this shouldn't be tossed aside and ignored.

I wonder how Mike, or Brian, would react to this thread?

deleted

Emily, I am perplexed at your stance here. Did Rocky really get to you? Seems you now have a bias and you've lost your objectivity! You have always been a source of reason and common sense on the Board.

Say what you want about Rocky, he isn't a complete idiot. In that, he wouldn't set himself up for a huge libel lawsuit from Mike without some type of evidence.

Also, though he obviously has done some embellished writing, he has not proven to make up incidences. For example, I have heard from a source, who has a source, that Brian did punch out Mike.

Right now there is a) Stephen's deposition b) the tape of Stan admitting perjury c) Rocky's testimony

My question is why no action from Brian's side? Have the statute of limitations expired or do Brian's camp feel it wouldn't be financially worthwhile to litigate this thing?

deleted

Quote
Why dredge this up again? This case was  litigated in court and reached a conclusion.  Each side had an opportunity to present their case and a decision was reached.  You're just spinning wheels rehashing all of this stuff.  And for whatever it's worth, wasn't Steve Love a convicted felon at some point?

Uhh, because there is one person who claims to have lied in a court of law for that suit in the prosecutors favor...so the conclusion reached for that suit was possibly based on lies. Let's keep in mind that this lawsuit is one of the most famous lawsuits in rock-n-roll history. So I'm not "spinning wheels", just trying to get people to focus on finding the truth...no matter what the truth is.

If you're referring to the Mike Love case against BW, no prosecutors were involved, it was a civil lawsuit.  If one side told lies during trial, such as ML, then BW and his lawyers would have had time to prove the claims were lies.  My understanding has been, that Mike Love claimed he wasn't given songwriting credit for a number of  songs that were released/published, and that is basically true.

From experience and no comment on the Loves or Wilsons, lies, half-truths, fabrications, misrepresentations are commonplace in lawsuits and trials.  It's the jury's job, not an easy one, to sort out the truth.  Steve Love may had the criminal case dismissed against him or expunged from his record after serving out the terms of his plea bargain, but that is not the same as being exonerated.  

I wonder how Van Dyke Parks would react to this thread.

Third party corroboration of things that Rocky has said would be preferable, though I imagine that anyone who still in 2016 retains any sort of relationship to anyone in the BB organization wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. And understandably. Only an exiled person with nothing to lose relationship-wise, and I would think nothing to lose from a legal standpoint (as far as what retaliation could come out of outright fabricating complete lies), would go this far.. I'd imagine.

I am guessing that some of the information Rocky is bringing forth is new. Like the Stan tape existence.

Will this even come to court?
Will Mike sue Rocky?

Interesting stuff!

Quote: I wonder how Van Dyke Parks would react to this thread.

He would probably respond in riddle-form.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but no match for a dangling participle.

Mike really couldn't come out any worse if this tape of his lawsuit tricks is true.

Last night on CBS I caught word that McCartney is perusing a recapture of the Beatles publishing catalog, under the terms of the US Copywright Act of 1976. As per the link below, the United States' 1976 Copyright Act gives songwriters an avenue for reclaiming lost publishing rights on songs released before 1978. All they have to do is to wait 56 years – meaning that songs like Love Me Do, released in 1962, will be eligible in 2018

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/aug/11/paul-mccartney-beatles-back-catalogue (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/aug/11/paul-mccartney-beatles-back-catalogue)

To my knowledge, Brian does not own his publishing. He merely received an awarded settlement, which led to Mike's lawsuit. Could this mean that the Beach Boys publishing circa '62 to '66 will be available in the next few years? If SO, it would behoove Brian, Melinda and all interested parties to put this dog to bed. Once and for all.

If possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that all kinds of merda would hit the fan from Mike.

What do we take from his story about him puking after hearing California Feeling in the car?  Was he in on the joke, or can he be led rather easily by the nose?

Doo Dah, you have found the answer why Mike is so angry recently about the songwriting lawsuit from 1994.

He wants the catalog or money from BW when it comes up for ownership changes in under the 1976 copyright act. Actual songwriting credits on those songs be damned. >:D

You are in the wrong thread, this is the Stephen Love thread...

I'm just saying, it occurred to me last night. What would appear to be ancient history (circa 1992) is not quite so ancient.

:) :) BINGO...and Mike will do "ANYTHING" to get the ownership of Brian's Music Publishing Catalogue... "Actual songwriting credits BE DAMNED!  Well said Doo Dah... I take my hat off to you!  This is exactly what Stephen and I were hoping would happen..."TALK ABOUT and EXPOSING Mike!" Melinda Wilson is the "ONE" who really needs to be INFORMED... and made AWARE! She is very bright and definitely has Brian's best interest at heart! :) :)

At what point are you going to release the tape?  In your book? Or do you plan to post the conversation on this forum?

Just curious, why would Stephen have been deposed at length for the Love-Jardine matter? Was it not regarding Al's use of the name Beach Boys, in his touring marketing? Just puzzled what Stephen, who would have been years removed, in terms of management, would have to add to the whole procedure.

:) :) Well, I don't know how one would release a tape in a book... unless I had it transcribed... and it's very LENGTHY.  It's also "ONE" of the things that PREVENTS Mike from SUING ME!  That and the IMMUNITY Charles English got me... as a result of the meeting I took with Brian's Lawyers at the Mezzaluna restaurant in Brentwood! (Home of the Brentwood Butcher) :) :)

:) :) It was indeed... to prevent Al from using the name Beach Boy and Friends... When Al was touring with Brian's daughters Carnie and Wendy and Michelle Phillips of "Wilson Phillips!"  Mike doesn't want anyone using Brian's... Beach Boys! :) :)

Maybe Mike found out and took it out on Ron Goldman...

Ah. And there we have it.

Give the tape to a court reporter and have her make a transcript.

Two weeks ago in between Rocky's clients.

Interesting - two consecutive posts from The Rockster that might have been written by two different people...  ::)

BTW, to answer the question originally posed: as regards all the stuff that's independently checkable, I'd have to say yes.

And this is why we can't have nice threads.

Rushton, can't you just leave this rubbish in the thread dedicated to you selling about fifty copies of your book, if indeed it ever sees print? (Should I mention here I'm also a published author? Or will you ask HOW MANY "COPIES" IVE SOLD  ::) ??? :police:))

I understand you're an elderly, apparently semi-literate fellow whose employment experience amounts to a) modelling, sometimes to sell smokeable toxins b) not being sufficiently good at sport c) bashing up drug addicts related to your former employer and d) not being able to find a publisher for your unreadable memoirs (and yes, since you've posted 'chapters' of them here, I am qualified to say this. They are - literally, essentially - unfathomable.)

And because of all that, because you're on the back foot in so many ways, because you're an older man with few real achievements behind you - except knowing quite a few people with genuine talent, which is a nominal achievement viewed through any justifiable prism - I have pitied you and ignored this rubbish up until now. But now you're pulling the same abusive, backward, self-serving sh*t in a different thread, on a nominally different subject. And you need to understand: no matter what the view count is, data which incidentally you persist in misreading, you are going to sell very few copies of that book to readers here. Maybe fifty, a hundred, for those who don't already feel they've fed the beast enough already. You were a novelty, when you arrived. A direct link to a band and individuals we, as fans and scholars, wish we knew better. And I understand you think you've been pulling a brilliant promotional coup on us. Maybe you have. I sincerely doubt it.

I came back after several weeks away, and was deeply intrigued to read this thread. Steve Love - though I'm aware you've collaborated in the past, if not on your daily posts - seems like an intelligent, EXONERATED (c) man, whose input I would be very keen to read more of. Your posts don't elevate discussions, they derail them. You have been pilloried on these threads, it's true, sometimes unreasonably, but you've also pulled an enormous amount of  ;D-faced bullying yourself. My advice, unsolicited, is that you should now stop - for yourself, if nothing else. Your total sales to folk here probably peaked about two months ago, before you started posting WHOLE CHAPTERS full of ellipses-punctuated semi-information already present in the Gaines book. Every confused, smug, borderline-abusive comment you make from here on may well lose you a sale, should your book ever see print. Which, again, I sincerely doubt. You may not know how board stats actually work, but I suspect any decent online publisher will.

I am aware I may have crossed board lines with this post, and if so I accept the censure of the moderators. I only hope you see this, Rushton 'Rocky' Pamplin, and on some level understand it before or if it is deleted, and save yourself some time and money. I realise this is unlikely, but it is a genuine and sincere hope. I don't blame you for who you are - let's remember, you lived in a time in which your friends thought the best way to deal with their self-destructive, drug-addicted family member was to have you turn up at his sad little house party and deliver the 'most brutal beating ever' - but for your own sake, get the book published before you go on such an aggressive, contradictory sales campaign. I pity you, Rushton, and I mean that both literally and - yes - biblically. And I'm an atheist.

Regards,
William

Damn...

I want to have William's babies.

Deleted: An odd joke. Will see how things pan out tomorrow; goodbye all if I what I posted above crossed any lines.

deleted

 :love :love :love :love

Oh my!! Hmmm... ;)

Thanks for saying what I've wanted to say to Pamplin in a far more temperate manner than I would have managed, William.
I would suspect Pamplin's book *will* come out, mind -- self-publishing is now easy for anyone, and as someone who has spent time around the self-publishing community (I've had books published through regular publishers and also self-published, so I'm not knocking it as a method to get work out) I would say Mr Pamplin is only slightly less literate, and only slightly more deluded, than the typical participant on the Kindle self-publishing message boards.
It's also likely that if he uses any kind of sense at all, he will have an "Amazon best-seller", and will come back to crow here about his great success -- just as someone recently managed to upload a photo of their foot to Amazon, get their mother and a friend to buy it, and have it go to number one for a couple of minutes in a tiny sub-sub-genre chart.
What he won't do, and I can say this as an absolute certainty, is make more than $100, total, from his "book"

Not speaking at all to this case or any specific case, but I will say that in many cases, subpoenas for depositions go out to a huge laundry list of people who might in any way be tangentially related to or familiar with any aspect of a case.

I wouldn't be surprised if some fans online at some point or another have been dragged into depositions, even if they have no actual information about a given case. It sometimes ends up a huge waste of time and money by counsel and client, but it happens all the time.

I got a bit put out arguing about this yesterday, but I just sent a pm to someone about this and felt it summed up my thoughts on the original question pretty succinctly, so here it is:
I definitely expect that there were ‘shenanigans.’ I don’t doubt that. I just am really tired of a few people salivating over Steve and Rocky because they think they might have dirt. I’m not surprised they have dirt on Mike, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t dirty themselves. Whether Steve’s honest – I have to question someone who says he has information pertinent to a legal situation who has been sitting on it for twenty years and dangling it on the internet for 3 or 4 years. I don’t doubt he has information, but the way he’s handling it is shady and stinks of dishonesty to me.

:) :) You'll GET WHAT I GIVE... WHEN I WANT... and to WHO I WANT... :lol

:) :) "doe doe"... Stephen wouldn't POST on this thread for anything in the world... I told him about this thread... and he said... "After the way they have VICIOUSLY and BRUTALLY  ATTACKED YOU... Ha... NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!!!  And as for emily... DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH! :lol :lol

Maybe the digitally-transferred can one day be made available in full on iTunes!  :lol

:) :) YOU"RE A "CLOWN"... YOU JUST JOINED emily... :lol :lol

:) :) Is that YOU in the middle of that picture... you look like 25 cents! :lol :lol

This is straight-up old-school bullying and should not be allowed to stand - particularly as Andrew was decent enough to defend Rocky from some comments.

You know, Rushton, as I was expecting a point-by-point refutation of my substantive arguments, your above riposte does come as something of a disappointment. At least I thought my post was worthy of more than just four emoticons and a mere three incorrectly used quote marks. (CAPS ratio is pretty good though, so I guess I'll take it.)

In any case, I find it very hard to read "you just joined Emily" as anything but a glowing endorsement of my position on this topic, as well as my worth as a human being.


Thanks, Andrew - and you're quite right on the above, of course.

Thanks, but don't worry about it. I insulted his literacy and understanding of the world -- deservedly -- and he likewise insulted my appearance, deservedly. (Or at least I think that's what he was trying to do -- his idioms are not always the most comprehensible).
Since I give no thought to my own appearance, or to Pamplin's opinion of me, I'm really not bothered.

Okay, help me out here.  I've been tied up with some pretty serious business with a client - many hours of work - and I just returned to SS for more than the 5 seconds I devoted to Belgium (posting in an inappropriate section, sorry).  This is a thread about Steve Love's credibility, and it's gotten really nasty, focusing on Rocky.  On the other hand, Rocky's thread has gotten really civilized.  What does this have to do with Stephen?

Oops, just checked again on the other thread.  I guess civilized simply won't be happening here.  I guess it's "sport" of some form?

Back to the Steve Love topic... what do we know about Steve? Married, kids, things he's done in life broken down by year... does someone have any sort of timeline of his life? I'm still not clear why he is to be doubted.

A vicious and brutal attack was what you and Stan did to Dennis (I'll add cowardly, just for good measure, because it was, and you are): what you've experienced here is the mildest of amused intolerance. Mind, if you keep quoting your own posts ad nauseum, that might change.

BTW, and I must be loosing my keen researchers edge, it's just dawned on me: there's a site where Steve posts about Mike called "Man vs Clown"... and you claim Brian attacked a clown he though was Mike.

Hmmmm... anyone else thinking what I am ?  ;D

Ditto. Let's focus on the topic at hand. If Rushton wants to jump in, so be it. He has the right, as do the in-crowd / morally sanctimonious.

If anyone knows where the skeletons are buried, it's Stephen. Hence his separation from brother Mike. Which is stupid, basically...blood should be thicker than water. No exceptions.

And Mike Love is the 100% undusputed truth by a certain group of posters. ::)

I apologize for never keeping a journal or keeping track of these folks.  I still don't know how many wives Mike had - not that it matters - but some people here seem to focus on every date and detail.  I'm not one of them.  Maybe Rocky can share more about him, since they're friends?

:) :) Here... Here... Doo Dah!  You astound me!   But you have to REALIZE... blood being thicker than water means nothing to mike-y!  It TRULY doesn't... "MONEY" is mike ONLY GOD!      He only comes out of his "SCHEMATATION" to SUE Brian for MONEY for SONGS that HE DID NOT WRITE!!! >:D >:D

:) :) Debbie you are so smart... I can't begin to tell you how accurate you are in your quick assessment of these people!  The trivial meaningless drivel that they wallow in... instead of things of actual importance!  You are a GOD SEND!!! :) :)  Bless YOU...

:) :) Not bad... :) :)

:) :) Thanks again... you are truly the smartest person on this thread... it only took you a matter of day's to be shocked at the POISON that PERMEATES this thread!  Dig this... they hate me for beating up Dennis for giving Brian Heroin and Cocaine when he had a seizure and his live in nurse had to stick a rolled up wash cloth in his mouth to prevent him from swallowing his tongue... and SUFFOCATING to DEATH!  She called Stan and begged him to do something about Dennis inadvertently trying to KILL Brian!  So Stan came and got me at a party and pleaded with me to convince Dennis to do what she couldn't do... and this is after she replaced Stan and I at the JOB OF KEEPING DRUGS OUT OF Brian's LIFE!  The only CONVINCING Dennis has ever understood in his life... is the kind that you NEVER FORGET... a good ass whooping! OH... MY GOD... SHOCK and HORROR.. (We don't condone violence of any kind) If Brian DIES?... it's a tragedy... but violence?..."NEVER!"  You do the math... :) :) By the way... Dennis never bothered Brian again... for the next four years... and then he drowned in 15 ft of water at "5:30 pm" in the Marina... DRUNK (.26 blood alcohol level)

Has Stephen ever actually spoken about his time with the Boys? I thought I remembered reading on that "Mike Love is a Clown" page that Ambha Love claimed he had run off to Hawaii with the purported embezzled money?  ???

:) :) What are you talking about... "doe doe" defend me?  He can't even spell the word!  And you... you look up the word "OPINIONATED" in the dictionary... and they have your picture nest to it! :lol :lol  Even Debbie KL... the girl Brian liked...has already seen through the "angry 13" and is REPULSED!  :) :)

I was referring to your comment about Andrew Hickey. I do have opinions and one is that there's a big difference between criticizing peoples' actions and words and criticizing peoples' appearance.
And, yes, I also have opinions on whether it's appropriate to batter people who have not physically attacked you and who are impaired. And about whether forcibly controlling other people is acceptable. So, yes, we're in an area in which I have very strong opinions.
Cheese or pepperoni? Meh, I could go either way.

:) :) How could you be bothered... you don't even have a brain... Oh that's right... you're the LITERACY POLICE EXPERT... emily is still single... lonely... and desperate! :lol :lol  You don't have OPINIONS emily... YOU ARE AN OPINION!  The EXCESSIVE POSTING OPINION... "excessemily" :lol :lol

Wow. This is pretty rough talk Rocky, easily said behind a computer screen....I'm not one to be easily offended but this kind of stuff is pretty unnecessary....  :-\ 

:) :) Where have you been for the last 3 months... these people have thrown a million stones at me... while you were down under! :) :)

I've been here observing the whole time but surely tit for tat isn't solving anything here? Seems all statements from both sides have been going in circles for some time now don't ya think?? :smokin

None of this has been pretty. 

Rocky, can I ask again, as I think my question was missed.  It sounds like Steve is a pretty happy, mellow man these days with a good relationship.  Can you tell us about his life?  You seem to have been friends over the years.  I honestly don't know what he's been up to.

I'm just going to point out, in my defense, that I hadn't posted in the Rocky thread for five days and during that time he name-checked me insultingly several times. I agree the tit-for-tat has gotten old, which is why I stopped posting there. I will leave this thread too now, to Rocky's fans.

I will leave it to Debbie to let me know if she agrees with the latter statement.

I think both Rocky and his haters are equally to blame for this tit for tat bullshit.

 :) :) Just a little RECAP... of the "HATE TIT for TAT"...  No one who reads Smile can DENY that I was not only attacked immediately... personally... and without provocation!                  On everything imaginable... including PERSONAL ATTACKS... not just my USE of Cap's or Quotes or Spelling... but of being Illiterate... and including being a FU*KING MORON etc... etc... the list goes on and on.  And... I REFRAINED FROM ENGAGING IN THE INSULTS!!!  I even posted a quote... from one of the members who pleaded with the posters... "TO GIVE THIS GUY A CHANCE... LET'S HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY... BEFORE WE START INSULTING HIM!  I even quoted scripture..."Let he who has not sinned ... CAST THE FIRST STONE"...
I even posted a modified version of Dylan's "Blowin In The WIND... (from page 32 of Smiley Smile)  But the "INSULTS were HURLED at me by the THOUSANDS...
                                                                                        
                                                                                           How many times
                                                                                           Must a man turn the other cheek
                                                                                           Before he stands up and speaks

                                                                                           How many criticisms
                                                                                           Must one man allow
                                                                                           Before he finally lashes out

                                                                                           How many INSULT'S
                                                                                           Must one man endure
                                                                                           Before he fights back for sure

                                                                                           How many times
                                                                                           Must a man hold his tongue
                                                                                           And pretend that he just doesn't hear

                                                                                           To suffer the slings and arrows
                                                                                           Aimed to impugn my work
                                                                                           Daggers coming straight for my words

                                                                                           The answer my friend
                                                                                           Is blowin in the wind
                                                                                           The answer is blowin in the wind                                                                                                            
                                                                                                      

Funny how the worst bullies often turn out to be the biggest whingers....

Trying to get this thread back on track...

What are we to make of the following:

1. Mike asks for a few song writing credits and 750k.  Brian's lawyers urge him not to settle and next thing you know Mike takes a defenseless Brian to the cleaners and comes away with far more credits than originally requested.  Something seems off about this from the get go.

2. Mike files the "Smile lawsuit" against Brian in 2005, makes a series of provably absurd false claims regarding Brian in the lawsuit.  The lawsuit lasts around five years and is filled with shenanigans including at least one false witness.

3. Steve Love acknowledges in a deposition that there were shenanigans at play in the song writing credit lawsuit.

4. Rocky seems to be saying there is a smoking gun tape that we expose perjury in the song writing credits case.  Whatever you think about him, he seems to be acknowledging he and at least one other (Steve, Stan, someone else) committed perjury.

I'm not sure what to make of all of this, but as the saying goes, where there is smoke there is fire.  Mike credibility is in question after the false claims and fabricated witness of the Smile lawsuit in 2005.  Now there appears to be testimony challenging the song writing credit claims.  One apparent witness is Steve Love, who even AGD acknowledges has a track record of being a credible source.  Where does this leave us in regards to the song writing credits?  There are a lot of unanswered questions, but the information above does not paint a pretty picture.

I hope the truth comes out, but suspect it never will.

EoL

The sad thing is, I think that whether the truth comes out or not is possibly going to depend on who outlives who in the story.  Just look at Scott Wilson's book. Lots of truly fascinating yet deeply disturbing relations in that book. It took guts for him to say what he said.  Not sure if all of those stories in the book would have come to light if Denny were still living.  I also think it takes guts for Steve to bring to light issues which I suspect he deeply believes are the truth. Whether the book is  grammatically flawless, or whether it contains grammatical errors is of little consequence, much like Scott's book.

The number of points you list above are quite fascinating to see as a list.   Figuring it all out remains a big mystery at this point, almost like a episode of Law and Order or Forensic Files.  I suspect that Rocky and Steve are going to have an impact on the story in some fashion from this point out, and I think that Mike's book will be impacted as well in some fashion, even if it's only a sentence or two to attempt to completely discredit his brother. Just my guess.

I wonder if anyone has ever called Steve, "The Lovester".

:) :) What would you call the manager who made each of the, broke, Beach Boys Millions in Investments...touring, and in recording again as a result of Stephen's Brian's Back campaign... does that QUALIFY as Lovestar?  :) :)

Rocky, there's another thread on this board where people are speculating about why Mike had to file for bankruptcy in the early 1980s, which was also around the time the band really dug deep into performing any controversial show for money (like playing South Africa in 1981 during the heart of Apartheid, and Mike speaking the infamous quote which I'm paraphrasing "the UN can screw themselves... it's [the gig is] good money")...

I think these events were not long after Steve was removed from his position in the band, and if Steve being present was good for the Boys financially, it seems to make sense that that Steve's removal coincided with the band members - especially Mike - being broke and really needing money.

 :) :) Stephen was empowered by virtue of being designated the sole General Partner, that is, the control person, and the individual Beach Boys were limited partners, which means they have no say in the management of the investments or the disposition of funds.  Of (1) Spaulding Ranch in Santa Barbara.  (2) Modal... the Motel 6 in Dallas Texas and  (3) A 30 acre parcel of raw land in South Kona on the Big Island.  When Mike turned on Stephen for sending him the telegram that read: Now is not the time to be stupid... You need to get back here and rehearse for the tour in two weeks.  Mike betrayed Stephen and sided with Dennis and Carl, Brian's drug provider and enabler, and voted with Dennis and Carl to have Stephen FIRED... while still owing him $550,000 dollars on his existing Management Contract.  Of which they paid him $150,000 and then STOPPED ALL FURTHER PAYMENTS! Still owing him $400,000 dollars.
     Therefore, Stephen, then LEGALLY sold the Spaulding Ranch Investment, that had No Water Easement, and LEGALLY "Re-invested" the Beach Boys $315,000 dollars and his $315,000 dollars ($630,000) in Beach Front Property in Hanalei Bay Kauaii... now worth $25 Million dollars!  Stephen's "brother" Mike had Stephen arrested  and charged with embezzlement!  The above Court Order completely Exonerates Stephen of any Illegal wrongdoing!  But because Stephen was not financially able to Counter Sue the Beach Boys for the remaining $400,000 dollars they still owed him on his previous Management Contract... the embezzlement stigma stuck to Stephen  Exactly what Mike wanted... "Brotherly Love"... or a common Mike Love POWER MOVE!  Sue the FU*K OUT OF EVERYBODY... and hope they don't have money to defend themselves!  But at least DESTROY their life!
     Even though the final analysis it came down to Superior Court Judge Nancy Brown: Mr. Love your plea of "No Contest" entered ten years ago, is set aside, a "NOT GUILTY" plea entered, the case is dismised, and your record expunged.  Do you understand all of that?  The defendant: Mr. Love, "Yes, and THANK YOU, Judge Brown. That is music to my ears!"  For Stephen, two of his favorite words are EXONERATION and Expungement!  Brotherly Love turns out to be just another Mike Love LIE... just ask Brian Wilson!    

Rocky, if it your objective to make things right and bring justice to this matter, why don’t you give a copy of the tape to Brian Wilson?

Why did he plead no contest to the criminal charge if he was innocent?

I would like Rick and everyone else in the blogosphere to know that I was fully exonerated of the one count of grand larceny I pled no contest to (in order to avoid a circus of a trial) by Order of judge Nancy Brown of the Los Angeles Superior Court on FEB 22, 1996.

-Steve Love

https://manvsclown.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/why-i-hate-mike-love/#comment-6171 (https://manvsclown.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/why-i-hate-mike-love/#comment-6171)

:) :) THANK YOU!   You, my friend, have just answered the 64 thousand dollar question!  Is it really that difficult to GET!  But, you watch, there will still be people on this thread that will not GRASP your response! Because all they want is a CIRCUS LIFE here! :lol :lol  I can only IMAGINE what their PERSONAL LIVES ARE LIKE!

:) :) Because I took it even one GIANT step further... and took a meeting with Brian's Lawyers at the Brentwood Mezzaluna restaurant... and PLAYED it for them!  They, then, got me...    MY OWN ATTORNEY ... Charles English... who secured IMMUNITY for me!  And then the SH*T really hit the fan for MIKE... (to the tune of millions)...TO LEARN THE REST... you'll just have to read the book when it comes out!  And it will COME OUT!   And Beach Boy fans will "BOO"... Mike off the stage!  And Brian and Stephen will both HAVE THE LAST LAUGH!!! :lol :lol

:) :) The Beach Boys made the boneheaded blunder of a lifetime when they fired Stephen, for not sending me home for punching out Carl, at the beginning of 1978!  He had resurrected their floundering careers, in his nine year tenure, and as you just stated within a few years, AFTER FIRING STEPHEN, they were no longer financially solvent... ie; filing BANKRUPTCY!  A MULTI MILLIONAIRE BEACH BOY FILING BANKRUPTCY ... COME ON!  Even after Stephen had made them millions touring, investment wise, and a two million dollar advance from CBS records for his Brian's Back campaign!  These guys are their OWN WORST ENEMY!   Look what Mike did to Brian? :lol :lol

Rocky - help me out here...if Brian's attorneys have the tape, why didn't they act, since this is "to the tune of millions?"

Rocky, could we get a look at your avatar in full size, it appears to be a legal document of some sort?

Doe showed us his, maybe you could show us yours?  ;)

EoL

:) :) THERE WAS PLENTY OF ACTION... JUST NOT MEDIA EXPOSED... UNTIL NOW!!!  I cannot tell any of you any more... you will have to read the book when it comes out! :) :)

:) :) I'm working on it... It is a copy of the Court Order!  Stephen's Exoneration and expungement!  Have the "Fact Checkers" get their magnifying glasses out! The same way they scrutinize EVERYTHING else!  :lol ;)

Rocky wins the thread! 8)

Okay, the book, the book, I get it. But are you inferring that an out of court settlement took place? A Pauly Walnuts sit down? A Come To Jesus moment?

If so, it may account for Mike's current sour attitude. Interestin'.

Given that the events Rocky is recounting took place at a restaurant that has been closed for 20 years, I can't see the connection to Mike's current media gripes.

Rocky, if there were lies told during the trial, did they affect the way the songwriting credits were awarded?

I have the worst memory for facts, but, didn't Brian fire those lawyers and take legal action against them?

What you refer to, Brian may well not be aware of. In any event, I doubt those attorneys represent Brian these days nor would I imagine does he have any record of the tape.

So excellent suggestion, get Brian a copy of the tape Rocky/Steve.

You're correct. After they lost him pretty much all his publishing settlement, Brian's people reportedly sued the lawyers.

Um... the "Brian's Back" campaign was two years earlier, at Reprise. Nothing to do with CBS.

Oh, wait... that's "poetic licence" again, isn't it ?  ::)

This is just one more giant bucket of lies from the Rockster.  Rocky, I'm going to put this in words and style you can understand (though you probably still won't understand):

You CANNOT... be granted IMMUNITY... from PERJURY!  :) :)  It is... long standing PRECEDENT from the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT... and the LAW IN EVERY STATE!  I know this both because... I am an attorney... and because I have COMMON SENSE!   :) :)  For you SEE Rocky, witness IMMUNITY is granted by a prosecutor... to a WITNESS... in exchange for their TESTIMONY!  Charles English... COULD NOT just "secure IMMUNITY for you" unless their was... some TYPE of criminal case... that THE TESTIMONY WOULD be USED in!  For example..."If you TESTIFY against this drug dealer you'll be IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION...for any statements YOU MAKE during that TESTIMONY!"  :) :)  But, again, even if their were a CRIMINAL CASE and an IMMUNITY deal offered to you by A PROSECUTOR... that IMMUNITY deal would NOT COVER perjury!  :) :)


You and Steve might have lied for Mike Love.  For your sake I hope not, as perjury can result in imprisonment.  Finally, Rocky, I have one question for you: if you get prosecuted for perjury, will you claim the defense of "poetic license?"

This is an awfully broad statement given we have almost no facts to go on.  Suppose that there is a pending criminal case against Mike Love and/or his legal team for the song credit lawsuit.  Couldn't Rocky agree to testify that he lied previously upon the condition he would be granted immunity?  If so, is it not possible the prosecutor's office would offer immunity?

Also, without a pending lawsuit could a person go to the courts, in the county in which he committed perjury, and offer up evidence for a potential future lawsuit in exchange for future immunity?

Is there an equivalent immunity in a civil case/can a similar immunity be granted in a civil case?

EoL

Nice try going after Rocky as you once did to Oldsurferdude as the "legendary LSD" ::)

:) :) Doo Dah... you are smarter by the post!  But ENOUGH is ENOUGH!  I am not going to tell you "THE WHOLE BOOK" :) :)

:) :) "doe doe"... once again your WRONG lunk head!  One of the MORE SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS Stephen accomplished was negotiating a Recording Contract with Walter Yetnikof and CBS Records, under the slogan of "Brian's Back", where Stephen got the Beach Boys a TWO MILLION DOLLAR ADVANCE!  To which Walter, later said... I THINK I HAVE BEEN FU*KED! :lol :lol And upon signing the contract... Brian cried!

It is not a broad statement, because it is the law, plain and simple: no immunity for perjury.

1. Rocky could not be granted immunity under any circumstances for his perjury, as that is not allowed in any US State.  It does not matter if there is a criminal case regarding Mike Love and songwriting credits.
2.  A person cannot "go to the courts" and offer up evidence for a potential future lawsuit in exchange for future immunity.  There must be a pending lawsuit.  The principals of witness immunity in the US stem from the 5th Amendment prohibition against forced/required self-incrimination.  So, if you plead the fifth in court when testifying as a witness, a judge has the power him/herself to grant you immunity while you are on the stand to ensure you testify.  Basically, from a policy prospective we want witnesses testifying in trials, and we don't want criminals to go free because a key witness refused to testify.  But that is the only circumstance where "the courts" (a judge) can offer immunity.  Which would, of course, not apply to Rocky's circumstances.  Prior to trial, though, it is the prosecution that offers immunity.
3. There is no equivalent immunity in a civil case.  The 5th Amendment has been applied to civil cases, but a witness may not refuse to testify like he/she can in a criminal case.  The witness must take the stand and invoke the 5th on a question by question basis, and even then it is up to the judge to determine whether or not actual criminal liability is a risk.  In other words, the judge could decide that there is no basis to assume answering the question would subject the witness to future criminal liability, so he/she can reject the invocation of the 5th and compel the witness to testify.

And even if Rocky had been granted immunity, it is not a blanket protection.  In rare cases a witness will be granted transactional immunity, which prevents the witness from being liable for anything mentioned in the immune testimony.  But in most cases, witnesses are only granted use and derivative use immunity.  That type of immunity prevents the prosecution from using any of the statements made by the witness or any evidence derived from those statements against the witness.  That immunity basically provides the same protection as the witness not testifying in the first place.  This means that a witness can still be prosecuted, so long as the prosecution gathers additional independent evidence against the witness.

In summation, there was and has been no criminal case.  So Rocky could not have received immunity in exchange for testifying.  Even if there were a criminal case, you can't receive immunity from perjury under any circumstance.  It's that black and white.  And even if Rocky did testify that he committed perjury, his credibility as a witness would be shot and easily impeached by opposing council (i.e. "he admitted to lying under oath about the songwriting credits before, so who's to say he's not lying under oath now?").  The statute of limitations for Perjury in this instance is 4 years, but it is 4 years from the DISCOVERY OF THE OFFENSE, so if Rocky did commit perjury he could still be in trouble ( which could even mean possible jail time of up to 4 years).  

So once again, Rocky, I hope for your sake you did not actually perjure yourself.

Hi Cam Mott/Filleplage! ;)

Ahh, SmileBrian - false accusation.  However, I am flattered because of the well-drafted post. 

Counselor OT gave a thorough explanation of the concept of immunity. 

Since I have no personal knowledge of the reported "arrangement," I cannot opine. 

If it was the same late Attorney Charles English, he enjoyed a wonderful reputation as a wonderful lawyer, respected by the court and by his fellow brother and sister attorneys.  He died in 1999 of a brain tumor. 

And, I don't appreciate that you suggested I was the author, and hope the mods are reading.   ;)

So you are flattered but you don't appreciate the accusation?  The accusation that wasn't made unless you think he was stating that you and Cam and the poster are all the same person.  Makes no sense.  And what are you hoping the mods will do?  Ban SB because the post reminded him of your schtick?  Which, by the way, it sounds nothings like you.  You generally ramble and evade whereas this poster was definitive and to the point.

Grow a bit of a thick skin and/or knock off the feigned offense.

EoL

Ask Steve when the "Brian's Back" campaign was, and he'll tell you 1976. There's a pic of a "BB" sticker in David Leaf's book about Brian which was written before MIU was released, proving once more you don't know what you're talking about. As for Brian crying when he signed a contract, that was the deal with Reprise in 1970.

Two different issues.  One that it was intimated that I (or Cam Mott) had written under another name.  False.  That is how I interpreted it.  

Second, the post, or the two of them, one responding to yours, which appeared to doubt the first explanation, was well-written.  

It was not the first time I have seen my name or Cam Mott's thrown out in that fashion.  And, hope that the mods take notice of same.

The offense was not feigned.  It is continuous nonsense.  

OT, thank you for the explanation.  I have almost no knowledge of our legal system (yet another tragedy of the pathetic education system in this country).  However, I did read some things online indicating that immunity is possible in cases of perjury.  I'm not saying I trust Google, obviously there is a lot of bad information out there, but it is hard for me to believe that the one thing which is completely exempt from immunity is perjury.  Regardless, thank you for your thorough post.

EoL

Go ahead, make my day.... ;)

Oh geez.

I'd love to see FDP, Steve Love, and Rocky Pamplin together in a stuck elevator, and see what hilarity would ensue.

Nah, I think you are pretending to take offense at the smallest of slights in order to get someone banned, which is continual nonsense and I am tired of it.  In my opinion you bog this board down more than any other poster.  I hope the mods take notice of your trolling.  

Seriously you are/were an attorney, there is no way you could be so easily offended.  If so, I don't know how you make it in the real world.

EoL

Exactly, it's about the level of feigned offended level of the 2005 lawsuit from Mike Love.

You may not agree with my viewpoint, but that is my prerogative as a poster here.  

You clearly have a poor opinion of attorneys.  

Regrettable, I think they are like everyone else in society.       :lol

 

There you go again, finding a slight were there was none.  As per usual you make no sense (nonsense)

EoL

Let's get back on topic to end this FDP thread derailment early instead of 10 pages in.

Well, I'll quote both the CA Rule and Federal Statute (emphasis mine).

Federal: Once an order of immunity has been given "the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order."  18 U.S.C. Section 6002(3).

CA: "No immunity from perjury or contempt: Notwithstanding (c) or (d), a witness may be subject to proceedings under the juvenile court law or to criminal prosecution for perjury, false swearing, or contempt committed in answering or failing to answer or in producing or failing to produce evidence in accordance with the order." C.R.C. 5.548(c).

But I want to point out that it almost doesn't matter what the law is regarding immunity, because it is highly unlikely that a prosecutor worth his/her salt would ever grant immunity for a perjured statement.  The reason is because the witness would have zero credibility.  Attorneys use prior inconsistent statements all the time to impeach witnesses.  For example, let us say Rocky claims under oath that Mike didn't actually write the lyrics to "Song X."  Mike's attorney on cross then asks, "Isn't it true that in the prior case of Love v. Wilson you testified under oath that Mike did, in fact, write 'Song X?'"  And right there, Rocky's credibility will have been shot.  The judge, the jury, they are unlikely to believe anything Rocky says.  


Basically, as a policy we want witnesses to testify in criminal cases, but we don't want to force them to incriminate themselves.  And it's more than just a public policy, it's in the Fifth Amendment.  Immunity is the solution to that self-incrimination problem.  At the same time, however, the integrity of the litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of facts.  A legal system that depends on an adversary's ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure.  Which is why the law discourages perjury in the strongest possible way, and why immunity statutes specifically except perjury from their protections.

And finally, even if a prosecutor would be inclined to grant Rocky immunity for Rocky's perjury, because there has been no criminal case and there isn't one pending, Rocky CANNOT have been given immunity.    

OT: thank you, again, for clarifying.  Your point regarding the necessity of an actual or pending trial makes my following questions moot, but I am going to ask them for the sake of my own personal interest, and for clarity...

-----
Federal: Once an order of immunity has been given "the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order."  18 U.S.C. Section 6002(3).
-----

This seems to me to be saying that someone granted immunity in a particular trial is protected from self-incriminating statements but not from perjury.  In other words, if Rocky was given immunity in the song writing credit case and then committed perjury in that very case, the immunity granted in that case would protect him from self-incriminating statements in that case, but not from perjury committed under that immunity.  But I don't this is what Rocky is claiming.  I believe he is talking about a later legal development.  When Doo Dah asked whether there had been an out of court settlement (which I take to be after the credit case) he indicated this to be the case when he said Doo Dah was getting smarter by the post and that he could not reveal the rest until the book came out.  Here is the exchange:

Rab (I think): Rocky - help me out here...if Brian's attorneys have the tape, why didn't they act, since this is "to the tune of millions?"

Rocky:   THERE WAS PLENTY OF ACTION... JUST NOT MEDIA EXPOSED... UNTIL NOW!!!  I cannot tell any of you any more... you will have to read the book when it comes out!  

Doo Dah: Okay, the book, the book, I get it. But are you inferring that an out of court settlement took place? A Pauly Walnuts sit down? A Come To Jesus moment

Rocky:   Doo Dah... you are smarter by the post!  But ENOUGH is ENOUGH!  I am not going to tell you "THE WHOLE BOOK"

So I think you understood Rocky to be saying he was granted immunity in the credit case and thought he was therefore protected from perjury.  But what it appears he was claiming is that he committed perjury during the credit case and was given immunity in relation to a later legal action that was not publicized and was settled out of court.  With that said, it is hard for me to believe that in a later case, if a witness has taped evidence that affects the new case he could not be granted immunity for prior perjury.

-----
But I want to point out that it almost doesn't matter what the law is regarding immunity, because it is highly unlikely that a prosecutor worth his/her salt would ever grant immunity for a perjured statement.  The reason is because the witness would have zero credibility.  Attorneys use prior inconsistent statements all the time to impeach witnesses.  For example, let us say Rocky claims under oath that Mike didn't actually write the lyrics to "Song X."  Mike's attorney on cross then asks, "Isn't it true that in the prior case of Love v. Wilson you testified under oath that Mike did, in fact, write 'Song X?'"  And right there, Rocky's credibility will have been shot.  The judge, the jury, they are unlikely to believe anything Rocky says.  
-----

I see your point here but I suppose it depends on what is on the tape.  For example, if the tape contains a conversation between Rocky and another witness admitting to/joking about having lied, why wouldn't the prosecution in a new case be willing to grant Rocky immunity for prior perjury in order to use the tape for a new case?  The court would not be asked to believe Rocky's testimony about the writing credits, the court would be asked to listen to the tape.  And even if they disbelieve Rocky, what about the others in the tape?  It just seems hasty to assume the prosecution would throw out taped evidence of at least two witnesses on the basis of prior conflicting statements, at least until we know who else is on the tape, if it exists.

If I understand Rocky's cryptic and partial claims, he is stating that he has a tape of himself and someone else admitting to perjury in the credit case and that there was a subsequent legal action wherein he was granted immunity in regards to the perjury he committed in the credit case.  As I understand it, this is all legally plausible and logically believable given the existence of taped evidence of at least two people admitting to perjury.

A question: assuming the above, would such a settlement be public information?  If not the amount of the settlement would the legal action be public record?  Would there be a record of a filed lawsuit that was settled before going to court such that if we knew the names of the parties involved and the county in which the suit was files, could we find evidence of such a lawsuit?

EoL

PS: my apologies for the many typos above.  I do not think any of them are difficult to figure out so I am not going to correct them as I am typing all of this on my phone.

A few points –
1.   I don’t think Rocky ever specified that he or Stan lied; only that he and Stan talked about who the biggest liar was among trial witnesses
2.   Rocky claims Charles English got him the immunity, I think. Charles English died in 1999. But Rocky claims:
   which indicates a) that Rocky currently has immunity (if it is one of the things preventing Mike Love from suing him) but it was gotten before 1999. There is no ongoing-in-perpetuity-or-for-20-years immunity, so something's screwy with Rocky's immunity story. Also, that quote indicates that Rocky believes he is doing something suable – probably defamation.

Also, SB and a few others, I'm really unclear when considering Rocky's truthiness to be suspect became a badge of Mike Love apologism. There's a real disconnect with that. Is it a rule that only Mike Love apologists can think clearly?

 
 
Well, you might not like that immunity cannot be granted for perjury (and I'm sure some legal scholars would agree with you), but that is the way the law works.  However, even if it were possible to be granted immunity for perjury, Rocky could not have gotten immunity in this case, because immunity is granted in criminal cases only.  In a criminal case, the government is the plaintiff, so there could not have been any such settlement "to the tune of millions," as Rocky claims.  In general, there are no cash settlements, or even settlements, in criminal cases.  Some states, though, including California, do allow under very narrow circumstances "civil compromise for a criminal arrest."  This applies to minor misdemeanors only, and it has three requirements:

1. The same act results in criminal and civil liability.  For example, assault and battery is a crime, but it is also a tort (wrongful act, in this case personal injury, that gives rise to civil liability).  So you could sue someone in civil court for assault and battery while that person faces criminal charges for that same assault and battery.  
2. Before the case goes to trial, the victim formally states that he or she is satisfied by the compromise.  This is important, because courts in states that allow civil compromise in criminal cases believe that, as a policy issue, that immediate and full restitution to the victim, rather than drawn out court proceedings, is highly desirable.
3. The judge must consent to the compromise.  So even if the victim approves the compromise pre-trial, the judge can reject it if he/she does not believe the compromise to be fair.

I used assault and battery as an example because I think it is the easiest to understand.  If someone punches you in the face, that person has committed a crime.  But that person can also be sued for the medical expenses and pain and suffering you endured as a result of the punch.  And because there is both civil and criminal liability arising out of the same act, courts in some states will allow a civil compromise to affect the outcome of a minor misdemeanor criminal case.  Now, the phrase "same act" is important.  If You were to drive drunk and knock down my fence, mailbox, and basketball hoop, your drunk driving charge could not be civilly compromised.  This is because drunk driving is one act, but property damage is a different act.  They often go hand in hand (drunk driving leading to property damage) but they are not the same act.  However, these criminal cases, even if compromised civilly, are a matter of public record.  So not only could it easily be looked up, but if there had been criminal action taken against a Beach Boy, you can sure as hell bet the media would have reported it.        


1. The tape is hearsay.  It is inadmissible in a court of law.  Hearsay, for those that don't know, is defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence (adopted in every state) to be an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Basically, we want people present and testifying under oath where they can be questioned.  This stems from the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.  There are limited hearsay exceptions, but the only one that could apply here is "statement against interest."  That exception says, to quote Federal Rule of Evidence 804: "A statement that: (A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and (B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability. "  In other words, people are less likely to be lying when they make statements that go against their financial, property, or criminal interests.  However, "statement against interest" may only be used as a hearsay exception when the DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE.  This is a huge point, because Rocky would have to be unavailable to testify for the tape to get into evidence.  Meaning the tape would not get in.
2. Because the tape is hearsay, it could not be played in court.  Rocky and anyone else in the tape would have to testify under oath (unless someone else on the recording was unavailable, and then only that person's statements against his/her own interest would be allowed in - Rocky's would still be excluded).  So Rocky could state in court "I lied about the songwriting credits" but could not play a tape of himself saying he lied.
3. Rocky's credibility is a huge issue.  Judges and juries tend to give little-to-no weight to testimony that comes from people who admit to lying under oath.  And it makes the prosecution look bad when key witnesses aren't credible.  Which is why a prosecutor is unlikely to offer immunity to Rocky for perjury.  "The last time I testified, I was totally lying.  But this time I'm totally telling the truth!  Come on, you can trust me!"  That's just not believable.
4. You write "And even if they disbelieve Rocky, what about the others in the tape?"  The others on the tape have to speak for themselves (unless they are unavailable, i.e. dead, mentally incapable of testifying, etc).  For example, let's say that the tape is Rocky and Steve Love both admitting they lied in court.  As detailed above, the prosecutor couldn't just play the tape for the judge/jury to listen to.  The prosecutor would need to call Rocky and Steve to testify under oath that they lied in court.


As I wrote above, this tape is inadmissible hearsay evidence.  Furthermore, as also detailed above, immunity can only be granted in criminal cases, and may not be granted for perjury.  So it is not legally plausible and logically believable.  Because if there was a subsequent criminal case, it would all be public.  Everything from the arraignment to the jury selection is open to the public.  A criminal proceeding is only closed in extremely limited extenuating circumstances (such as the safety of a witness in a gang violence trial).  There is no way a Beach Boy could escape a criminal proceeding with nobody knowing about it.

The settlement amount/terms are private (unless one of the parties choose to reveal them), but the court would record the dispensation as "dismissed."  So yes, there would be a record of the legal action.



I hope this sufficiently answered your questions (which were good questions, btw).

OT:  That all makes sense.  Thank you for taking the time to answer/clarify each of my questions.

EoL

Granted immunity from hearsay which is inadmissable anyway?  What did I miss?

To both OT and EOL....great stuff guys.

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL

The clear this up, I've been a long lurker on the site.  I hated that it was impossible to have level-headed discussion about anything or anyone, particularly Mike (thanks largely to the same two culprits every time).  And I hated that so many threads devolved into posters attacking each other.  It's just not pleasant to read, and it wasn't something I felt like participating in.  But I still lurked, because this site does have a ton of intelligent posters, and I've learned a ton reading this site about a band I love.

Anyway, my wife (who is a big Beach Boys fan and also lurks) and I got so tired of one particular poster's shtick, with his constant "MyKe luHv" and emoticon filled "woot" posts, that we would often joke that it would be hilarious if those posts were parodied under the name "The LEGENDARY LSD."  So I posted a few times, emulating his EXACT style, and using "cuHsin brYhan."  Anyway, I thought it was funny, but after a few posts I stepped away, returning to lurking.  I wouldn't have even posted in the first place, but my wife made it the consequence of a bet over a game of SCRABBLE.  I took the bet, because I NEVER lose at SCRABBLE.  Well, until that game.  

But then Rocky Pamplin emerged and started spewing lies while claiming he was entitled to "poetic license."  BTW Rocky, try telling the judge in a defamation case that your false statements were "merely poetic license" and see how that works.  When Rocky started writing about immunity and a smoking-gun tape with perjury, I felt it would be useful if I stepped back in and provided the legal knowledge I possessed.  Hence the changed username and new posts.

As for what the legal discussion had to do with this thread, well, the alleged "shenanigans" and Rocky's claims about a smoking-gun tape were brought up in the original post of this very thread.  And a discussion as to whether or not Rocky could have immunity for such a tape seemed pertinent to the discussion that was occurring.


Finally, lest people think I am anti-Brian because I questioned Rocky's truthfulness or because of my prior parody posts, I am a huge Brian fan.  But I'm also a huge Carl, Al, Dennis, Bruce, Mike, Blondie, Ricky and David fan.  I like all of the Beach Boys, I have no hatred for any member of the group.  I believe that Mike is no saint, but then again they have all done things that are regrettable.  And I don't think calling out Rocky for lying makes anyone "pro-Mike" or "anti-Brian."

Debbie - More than once on this board, I have said that my fandom is as a Beach Boys' fan.  I agree with OT.  That makes three lawyers who have "gently" weighed in, in this highly contentious set of threads.  Maybe if you read the whole thread you will figure out the third.

First, the mods can tell by a person's IP address who is posting and when.  People used to change their handles often. It seems to happen less.  But they have the same IP addresses.  And, can check.

Second, almost any lawyer would have found the same things as OT, because the issues raised are the same and the rules come from the same place.    

The others dealt with the "content" (what was allegedly said) of the alleged tape.  I was thinking about the "instrumentality" or "means" of procuring this alleged tape without the "consent of all the parties."  Many states require consent of all the parties being recorded and CA is one of those.

OT gave both Federal and CA rules for hearsay and admissibility and credibility with "prior inconsistent statements." OT generously gave of his time to make that explanation. First, he is thanked. Then, gets disrespected.  

Of course, none of us who was not a witness, knows exactly what transpired other than the accounts of assaults and batteries, which I had read about in other BB related books.  Those who grew up in that era know that, even for the richest people, there was little effective treatment.  There is a scene in the Johnny Cash movie that reminds me of a similar scenario where the "June" character's father sat outside of the house with a shotgun when the dealers came selling their wares. That was their solution. They were extreme times.  I like to look at everyone's position and consider their role in the situation.  

It is my best understanding is that the mods can see the IP addresses so that if it was raised that issue would be solved quickly.  At some point, both OT and I were signed on last night and today.  Two names would have shown up with the same IP address as is the system I understand if it was the same person posting under two member names.

I have no idea who either of you are and I don't care to weigh in on the question.  However, having one person login as two separate people with separate IP addresses would be exceedingly easy.  Two usernames appearing at the same time proves nothing in this case or any other.

With that said, we should end the Rocky red herring and get back to the topic of this post, namely whether or not Steve Love is a credible source.  As I mentioned previously:

What are we to make of the following:

1. Mike asks for a few song writing credits and 750k.  Brian's lawyers urge him not to settle and next thing you know Mike takes a defenseless Brian to the cleaners and comes away with far more credits than originally requested.  Something seems off about this from the get go.

2. Mike files the "Smile lawsuit" against Brian in 2005, makes a series of provably absurd false claims regarding Brian in the lawsuit.  The lawsuit lasts around five years and is filled with shenanigans including at least one false witness.

3. Steve Love acknowledges in a deposition that there were shenanigans at play in the song writing credit lawsuit.

4. Rocky seems to be saying there is a smoking gun tape that we expose perjury in the song writing credits case.  Whatever you think about him, he seems to be acknowledging he and at least one other (Steve, Stan, someone else) committed perjury.

If Steve is credible as some have suggested, and given Mike's embellishing of the truth in the 2005 lawsuit, what does this imply in regards to his claims in the song credit lawsuit?

EoL

EoL - I can tell when I am reading a post written by someone with a legal education. 

You may know more about the world of IP addresses but two different people being accused of being one poster with two posting names is ridiculous. 

Without the court transcripts of these purported depositions in my hand, it is impossible to speculate.  You are using what you have read here and maybe other sources you might have.   

OT had some words of wisdom.  A message board may not be the best place to have this discussion.  An attorney's office might be.   Just sayin'.

P.S.
To those who celebrate this religious weekend, may it be in peace, and utmost safety.   ;)

The BBs are a band, not a court room entity.

If you honestly think that then I'm glad you're not my lawyer.

In the world of VPN use, you may be correct. 

I think, on balance, you might have been better off creating a completely new account, since a posting history of comedy trolling isn't necessarily the best advertisement for one's credibility.  But more importantly, I bloody love Scrabble and will gladly challenge you to a contest if it helps to resolve any outstanding business in Beach Boys land.

EoL, did Rocky say that he himself was one of the perjurers or that he and Stan were discussing perjurers without specifying who they were?

Debbie, excuse my off-topic and very ignorant question, but can you quickly explain the distinction between Ivar and BRI?

I am not sure this has been made clear, but I will save talk of Rocky for his thread and leave this thread for the question(s) regarding Steve Love.

EoL

mmkay, but in your post 8 or so above, with 4 premises and a question regarding the conclusion they'd lead to, the 4th premise depends upon Rocky's less-than-clear information. Is your post off-topic or would you simply prefer that I not ask questions about it?

Can someone refresh my memory, what case is Steve referring to when he says he was "deposed at length in AUG 2006 in connection with the Jardine-Love case"?

This is quite quizzical, FdP.  I never linked you to this mysterious attorney, yet I seem to be painted here as doing that.  Why so defensive FdP?  Seriously.  I never mentioned your SS name, nor your IP address.  You brought it up.  

And my main point was to bring this back to the topic of the thread - Stephen Love.  As far as I know, he never said he perjured himself.  Why is this now about Rocky and all this other business, other than to derail a thread?  

Edit:  Oddly my original, fairly brief post seems to be mixed in with all of your quotes in some odd amalgam.   How did your posts become mixed with mine?

Not a problem - Ivar was the BBs/Brother Records offices late 60's/very early 70's when Nick Grillo was Manager and Stephen Love was apprenticing.  BRI is Brother Records International - that continued after these offices were closed, to this day.

I don't think this thread is good for my blood pressure. But I'm going to say that I'm confused how the Rocky tape is off-topic since, from the very opening post, it's been linked throughout the thread to the main question, which seems to be - given the claims Rocky's making about the tape and the claims Steve has made about a deposition, do people think the writing credit lawsuit was on the up-and-up? If the OP wants us to take the stance that those two premises are fact and just answer without discussing the premises, that's fine, I guess, but kind of a strange exercise and makes the title question moot.
Otherwise, discussing the Rocky tape is discussing the premises which seems pretty on-topic.  edited to add: I think there's a bit of a conflict between the title and opening post regarding what the topic really is.

So Ivar was physical offices, rather than a company name... that's where I was confused. Thank you.

Brother Records
1654 North Ivar Avenue
Hollywood, CA

Debbie is not alone in referring to the Brother offices as "Ivar" -- Fred Vail does so as well.  It too me a while into my first lengthy conversation with Fred to figure out what he was talking about when he referred to "meeting at Ivar" or "a decision made at Ivar."  :)

Lee

Fred and I were next door neighbors at that time.  Yeah, it's a bad habit, referring to a business and a set period of time as a single entity, normally lacking further explanation.  Well put.

Debbie, I'm sure everyone in the organization referred to that period, entity, and location colloquially as "Ivar."  I even have a few pieces of memorabilia (press kits and the like) that are marked something like "Copy for Ivar." At first I was wondering who "Ivar" was!  :)

Lee

Yes, my post was off topic.  Also, to clarify, I was saying that Rocky has not been clear as to who is on the tape and that I was going to honor the requests above to stay on topic going forward.

EoL

In my memory, Ivar, (where The Flame were rehearsing first time Dennis took Trisha & I there), was usually referred to as American Productions.  Steve later moved those offices to Sepulveda & Rosecrans, in Manhattan Beach

Thanks, Ed.  I was never part of the Manhattan Beach offices - never even saw them.  I didn't even know that those offices on Ivar were called American Productions, and I answered the phones when asked.  It's all pretty comical, really.  I was a teenage baby, happily in that strange, windowless domain, opening fan mail, etc.  There was truly magical music in that unfinished rehearsal space.  I'm glad you enjoyed it, too.

I'm sorry for sounding rude above, but this leaves me mystified. If that's off-topic, what's the topic? Just generally, is Steve Love credible, without reference to anything in particular? Or is the existence of Steve Love's deposition in which he gave evidence pertinent to the credits lawsuit the topic? I'm legitimately confused by this.

The topic is whether or not Steve Love is credible whereas I was discussing Rocky's tape.  I believe Rocky has discussed Steve Love's deposition, but that is not what I was discussing.  I don't want to be the one to take the thread off topic, especially when there is another thread covering Rocky's perspective .

EoL

In all seriousness, you are saying that the original post was off-topic? Is the whole thread an artistic commentary on the pointlessness of message boards?

Thank you, Debbie, or should I say 'Golden Hair' - (and was it my daughter Brianne, who believe it or not turned 39 on 3/13, who coined that nickname for you?) - but I knew those offices in Manhattan Beach, (right near Stan & Steve's residence), better than Ivar.  (And by the way, was the place downstairs from Ivar called - King James?).  Wasn't Hollywood & Ivar another real estate deal they were screwed on - this one by Grillo?  Or was that just typical Dennis, claiming to own something they were only renting?  I remember him showing me how far they owned up Hollywood Blvd.  (Then again, he did the same with the porno theater where they rented warehouse space for the Holland/Brian studio, until they wouldn't let us in drunk!  The next day, the porno theater was raided, and construction began on Brother Studios!)

Emily, I don't know WTF you are talking about and I don't think you do either.  The topic of the original post is whether or not Steve Love is a credible source.  As it happens, this is also the subject of this thread.  The oglriginal poster does make reference to Rocky for the simple fact that Rocky seems to corroborate Steve's claim.  But the clear topic of the post, as indicated plainly by the very subject line, is whether or not Steve Love is a credible source.  It has nothing to do with whether or not Rocky's tape would be admissable in court.  First, Rocky's comment/tape is, at best, secondary.  Second, admissability in court has very little to do with the truth of the matter.  If we suppose Rocky and Stan testified that Mike wrote certain songs and that there is a contemporary tape of the two of them joking about committing perjury in this regard, it would be pretty damning of Mike's claims no matter what a court would be willing to consider.  I would dare say that two guys confessing to perjury is fairly persuasive - added on top of Steve's statement and Mike's false witness in 2005 and his blatant lies about Brian in the 2005 lawsuit.

But of all this the poster was not inquiring.  He was asking wether or not Steve Love is a credible source.  The admissability of Rocky's tape and his claims regarding immunity don't have anything at all to do with the original poster's question .  Is this so hard for you to understand?  Do you have anything to add to this question or do you want to continue to play dumb in regards to my attempt to stay on topic?

EoL

EoL, I'm sorry you're so frustrated but the feeling is mutual. I don't really get what you're saying either.
The original post said:
So the first post posits that two people are talking about something: Steve and Rocky. And that a knowledgable and credible person (presumably Steve) corroborates a story by Rocky about the tape. And then says "if these stories turn out to be true, what are the ramifications?"
As I posted before, perhaps the OP wanted us to just assume they are true and discuss the ramifications, but that would render the question in the title moot because it would be asking us to start with the assumption that he is credible (as it turns out, he did start with that assumption and brushed off any suggestion that he isn't).
So, assuming OP is serious about the question in the title, and given that the question is about whether the accusations are true and whether Steve Love's corroboration of Rocky's story is credible, the validity of Rocky's story must be considered. If Rocky's story is invalid and Steve corroborates it, that answers the question. So discussions about holes in Rocky's story are directly pertinent to the OP and original question.
1. If Rocky's story is invalid
2. Steve's corroboration is invalid.
Given the text of the OP and the topic subject, the validity of Rocky's story is absolutely on topic. I understand people are tired of talking about Rocky, but it was set out in the OP.

To simplify, the OP uses the tape story as evidence. In my interpretation, that renders discussion of the tape story on-topic. I'm sorry that my interpretation differs from yours.

From a strictly neutral perspective and to answer the OP's question "Is Steve Love a credible source?" I'll throw in my 10 cents worth.

SL would likely come across as a reasonably credible witness who would present well but given his bias against Mike his evidence (testimony in the US) would be easy to challenge and to cast doubt over its veracity. Then you add equally or more credible or compelling evidence from others on the opposing side and it's likely nothing much would turn on whatever he testified.

From a very casual glance at the thread I get the idea SL made himself and his evidence available to Brian's lawyers. Perhaps there's good reason why they decided not to use it and therefore whatever the evidence is, it is nowhere near as important or as useful in a legal context as some might think.

Debbie, the imagery that came to my mind when hearing you recount your experiences opening fan mail made me wonder: have you ever seen the film "Good Ol' Freda" about The Beatles' fan mail operations lady? Brilliant documentary. I do wish there could also be a BBs companion version of this doc.

(Off topic:  Yes, Brianne named me Goldenhair - loved that gorgeous child, now young woman).  The Ivar offices were above a drugstore when I worked there.  I vaguely remember hearing that the property was sold and became "The Baths" - a pretty legendary place before the AIDS epidemic. I'm assuming the purchase of that building would have been done by Grillo, given the timing.  Steve Love had entered as Grillo's intern before the sale and was likely aware of the details, but I don't think he'd have been in charge then.  I never heard if they lost money in that deal or not.  I also remember the BBs being invested in Wally Heider studios, south and around the corner from the Ivar offices on Selma, so possibly that was Dennis's reference?  I had the lofty job of delivering cheeseburgers to Carl and Steve Desper as they worked on mixing "Sunflower" there, so that would have been the time-frame of that ownership, or partial ownership.

I may be about to feel stupid (again) but does anyone know what Love-Jardine case Steve was deposed for in August 2006?

I actually haven't seen it, but I know that the Beatles took care of that super-fan, from what I've read.  I didn't really start a fan club, or anything like that.  I opened the mail that had been sitting for 6 years, apparently.  The BBs had gotten rid of their fan mail management firm back then in order to manage it themselves and it got lost in the shuffle.  I was a teen fan myself at the time and in the midst of plowing through all that mail, many interesting things took place in those offices and I was lucky enough to be exposed to wonderful music from the rehearsal room and to meet a lot of key players.  Pretty heady stuff for a little teen girl.  And many of the friendships have lasted to this day.

So that's how I met Nick Grillo, Stephen Love, Fred Vail, several band members, Flame, etc.  One thing that I would add is that the BBs were very interested in a fan's perspective on their music and were really respectful.  Carl even asked my opinion on a mix on Sunflower (This Whole World) when I delivered those cheeseburgers.  I thought that was really cool.

So, back to the topic - the Stephen Love I met was a very polite, professional young man finishing a degree at USC. 

Man, that fan mail from 1964 must have felt like from a century ago by 1970!

I admit to cheating after awhile and picking out my favorite mail.  The Japanese fans wrote wonderful, admiring poetry.  I tried to pass a lot of those along.  A young teen in Louisville, KY wrote Dennis twice a week - 5 page letters, describing his body in glorious terms every time.  I'd never seen anything like it.  There were all these letters and then I found one final one where she said he hadn't replied, so she was done with him - and that was the last letter.  Hilarious.  But I did plow through tons more.

But this isn't bringing us back on topic, is it?  I'm not certain what else there is to add.  Stephen was also in charge of hiding me in the sauna/tape storage room when one person would visit the offices who didn't want me there.  He obviously thought it was all pretty funny.  So did I.

Funny reading such personal letters in a office setting! Were there letters about SMiLE or pet sounds? 8)

OK, Debbie, if you're at liberty to do so, let's hear more about this story!  :)

(And, as far as I'm concerned, it fine for threads to go off on various tangents - it happens all the time, not only on message boards but in actual conversations as well. Also fine for posters to call for a return to the main topic at hand, but that's often a fruitless endeavor. I find posts from people like Debbie and Ed, who were actually there at the time, to be very informative and of greater interest than endless speculation from those of us who were not.)

Also, Debbie, I'm sure you've answered this before, but do you recall exact time frame (month and year you started and stopped) when you worked for the BBs? The Sunflower era is an especially interesting one to me as my fandom had reached incredible heights, but it was coupled with frustration that so few people (in the US at least) were willing to listen the the band at that time.

I was there Aug-Nov 69.  I'm pretty sure that was the timing of the Sunflower mixing sessions - like I said, I didn't journal (sorry)  I returned Apr to whenever, '70.  I'm thinking probably Aug or Sept. was when I had to leave.  Steve had the job of telling me I'd been "found out" and even though they all loved me, I had to stop coming in.  I'm not about to share who wanted me gone.  It was silly and everyone was very young.

The BB are a good example of the old saying that it's never good to mix business and family. They had way too much of that in the late 70s and that created a lot of these problems.

Also from fall 1961 to April 1964.

Thanks for the info, Debbie. (No matter, but I think I may have just realized who the person in question might have been. Or maybe not!)

Anyway, considering the time frame, I've got another question for you. -- What was your sense of the BBs level of concern about their declining popularity in the US during the time you were working at Ivar? Did you detect any level of desperation? Or did they seem content that they were popular overseas and confident that their new contract with Warner/Reprise and forthcoming album (entitled Add Some Music when I first heard about it, but later changed to Sunflower after the relative failure of the Add Some Music single in Feb. 1970) would lead to a renewed level of record sales success? Did they seem happy to be rid of the Capitol Records contract? Were they (and in addition to the BBs, this would include Nick Grillo, Fred Vail, and Steve Love) bummed that Capitol deleted their albums when their Capitol contract ended and they went to Warner/Reprise?

I know that a lot of my questions may be beyond the scope of what a teenaged Debbie K may have been interested in, but I'd love to know more about the vibe in the office at that time.

There wouldn't be a Beach Boys if the guys hadn't mixed business with family, but I'd put the time frame for the resulting "problems" as late 1961 - present.

Yeah, teeny-bopper Debbie definitely wasn't in any of the business meetings, but there were obvious currents that anyone paying attention could pick up.  I definitely didn't get a sense of desperation from any of the band.  Everyone was young and it was an exciting time for any artist.

Poor Nick had to deal with all the messes that were going on in business/finance.  It was rather amusing because we'd be all the way at the front of the offices and this loud eruption would come from the "vault" in the back corner.  That's what Nick's office was called - with a bit of a wink - since it had this rather strange sliding vault-like door that his secretary, Lou would activate from her desk.  His nature was to express himself, loudly, and then it would pass.  It was usually hilarious.  I mean, it was this business guy dealing with 20-something artists who'd known nothing but success and fame from a very young age.  It was the 60's when everything seemed possible, so it was youthful exuberance meets reality - in the vault.  The decor was late 60's - orange and gold foil wallpaper, green furniture and the like.  It would have been a perfect movie set. Stephen's office was modest, across from the sauna/tape storage room and just down from the "vault."

I agree that it is entirely natural for threads to wander a little and the insight from those who were there, like Debbie and Ed, is invaluable. I have no problem with threads going off topic when it occurs spontaneously - it's when it is deliberately done as a distraction that I find it irritating.

Hope this is reasonably on-topic, but it's always been clear to me that Mike was cheated of SOME songwriting credits--an obvious example being California Girls, which Brian stated repeatedly Mike had written, despite the lack of a songwriting credit.

But the number of songwriting credits that Mike ended up getting strikes me as suspicious.  For example, things like getting a credit for the 'Good night baby' stuff in WIBN...  that's a typical kind of thing where a singer improvises something brief in a song that doesn't substantially add to or change the existing, written words and music. It's pretty unusual to give someone an equal credit with the two people who actually wrote the song for stuff like that.  As such, I do wonder whether something shady went on in that trial, as Steve Love seems to be claiming. 

A noted board historian here ;-) looked up the Sunflower mixing sessions (or possibly just knew it) and tipped me off, and they were during the summer of 70 Ivar period instead of late 69.  It does blur together after these many decades.  

Back to Stephen.  I so wish he'd talk about those times here, but I guess he's uncomfortable on this board.  I doubt they were as controversial as later events.

As always, big thanks to Debbie and Ed for being so generous with their memories--as the commercial says, they're priceless. And, as this was a frenzied time for just about everyone in the band, it's especially interesting to have it surface here, since it does tangentially give us more detailed background about Steve Love.

While this question does venture a bit further off-topic, I wonder if Debbie and/or Ed have any recollections about Steve's involvement/position during the Grillo/Reiley "war" that must have started in the last couple months of '70 (IIRC)?

Trying to recall something I once read, regarding why Grillo's office was called The Vault and had such a door... I'm recalling that the building was a store for furs, or something like that, and Grillo's room really was a vault.

 :) :) Here is a little background anecdote that describes what Stephen had to deal with in relation to his brother Mike's "sanity."  This has to do with the time Mike ended up in a strait jacket.  Mike was having an emotional breakdow, having gone on an extreme fast, flown back from India, had not been sleeping and was meditating around the clock... or was he really napping and scheming?  Anyway, he was going on and on endlessly spouting meaningless jibberish when Stephen, seeing the concern and fright on his parents' faces, finally took action and yelled, "Enough!"  Steve then physically subdued Mike and dragged him across the kitchen floor to the car outside where his (horrified and alarmed) mom and dad drove him to a mental hospital where he was tranquilized, but not before putting up a fight, ergo the need for the strait jacket.  On the drive up to Hollywood from Manhattan Beach, in the back seat of the car, Mike suddenly turned and bit Stephen hard on the upper right arm, leaving a circular scar that lasted for years.  In what was a very tense situation, Stephen quipped, "Mike, I thought you were a vegetarian!?"  Later on his dad Milton told him, "That was the funniest quip ever in the history of our family!" His wittiness earned Stephen a lasting distinction in Love family lore! :lol :lol

Since Stephen obviously is posting here, through his good buddy Rocky -- Stephen, tell us more about your time working at the Ivar offices.

The image of Mike Love gnawing on his brother Stephen's arm gives a whole new meaning to the Def Leppard song, "Love Bites"  :lol

That had to be the quip of the century! :lol

 :lol :lol :lol  What I'd really prefer is the vomit inducing vid of the hatless myKe luHv oiling his body from the TV show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Tacky".

 :) :) I was invited to join this thread... and then I WAS ATTACKED FROM EVERY ANGLE!  The childish posters of Smile are the more mundane simpletons of the world... so I naturally just laugh at them!   But the ones that are PROUD OF THEMSELVES for being "VICIOUS"... which is another word for IMMORAL... are the "REAL TRAGIC CHARACTERS"... appalling... dreadful... disastrous... horrendous... terrible...They are the ones who have stooped to an "ALL TIME NEW LOW" in the DENIGRATION of SOCIAL MEDIA...the MUDSLINGING... the NASTY SNIPING...   the PERSONAL CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS!   There is something intrinsically "COWARDLY" about "SMEARING" someone from afar, ie; at a remove and from behind a keyboard! :) :)  And they will be the first ones to post... after this!

No, he's not. The Rockster says he's not, and as The Rockster is an author, he must be telling the truth, because The Rockster would never stop to "poetic license".  ::)

:) :) "doe doe"... you mean "stoop" to... "doo doo" ... YOU CAN'T EVEN SPELL... and YOU CALL YOURSELF A WRITER?  You're POETRY IN MIKE'S TOILET... YOU BOTH STINK!!! :lol :smokin :beer

Sounds like what you're doing to Stan Love.


How is it to be resisted? pot..kettle - every time.

 :) :) I bet Stephen "YOU" and "DOO DOO" would be the first two "DOE DOE'S to post some lame "TOILET GARBAGE"... I WON!!! :lol :lol

I rejoice that the art of the witty riposte endures. Oscar would be so proud.

 :) :) Is that what your head is doing down there in the TOILET... REJOICING?  Or are you looking for what's comming out the other END?  or maybe your looking for emily? :lol :lol

You know, I bet The Rockster actually SHOUTS AT THE SCREEN AS HE TYPES THAT. It's all rather sad, isn't it ?

:old :-)

 :) :) LOUD LAUGHING... is more like it! :lol :lol  Is that all you two got? :lol :lol I gotta find a tougher crowd... than two lonely old spinsters!!!  You wish I was throwing a fit!  You two are the ones CRYING! :ahh :ahh  "PUBLISHED... that's what!  I already have the MOVIE PRODUCER!  And I'm having FUN!  What do "you" and "doo doo" have... besides two pathetic lonely lives!  READING ME CONSTANTLY! :lol :lol  Get a job... GET A LIFE... your both BORING!

You missed the banter, huh? Cause I can't imagine you think swinging by here and throwing a fit is going to help get your book published.
Seriously, Rocky, what are you getting out of this?

Rocky, do you know or could you ask Steve what was the "Jardine-Love case" Steve was deposed for in August 2006?  Thanks.

:) :) Mike Love suing Al for using the name "Beach Boy" and "Friends"... Al was touring with Brian's daughters Carnie and Wendy and China Phillips (John and Michelle Phillips...Mamas and Papas)... from the ONE hit Wonder group "Wilson and Phillips"... for you see Mike is the only person on the PLANET entitled to use the name "BEACH BOY-S in any fashion shape or form... EVEN Brian can't use it... Brian gladly gave it to Mike JUST TO GET AWAY FROM HIM... as far as he could GET!  That's when Brian PUT TOGETHER his own GROUP of GENIUS MUSICIANS... who can actually PLAY an INSTRUMENT!  That's when Brian finally completed the album "SMILE" which he performed in London... and where Sir Paul McCartney and Sir George Martin attended!  The newspapers said "MONA LISA SMILES"!!! :lol :lol

Rocky, have you attended any of Brian's solo shows? I totally agree, Brian's band are a group of genius musicians. Absolutely incredible stuff.

 :) :) No... I have not attended :ANY" of Brian's or the Beach Boys shows since my day's of working for BW... they are not my only interest in life.  My book "WIPEOUT" is about Stephen... and Mike 's BETRAYAL of his cousin Brian and his brother Stephen!  :) :)

What hobbies you got these days Rocky?

:) :) What's your favorite color... you got? :lol :smokin

:) :) Al was touring with Brian's daughters Carnie and Wendy and China Phillips (John and Michelle Phillips...Mamas and Papas)... from the ONE hit Wonder group "Wilson and Phillips"...
[/quote]

Errrr... five Top 20 hits, including three US number ones ?

Also Chynna Phillips' name is spelled like that, not "China", the band she was in was Wilson Phillips, not "Wilson and Phillips", and she never toured with Al (though Owen Elliot-Kugell, Cass Elliot's daughter, was briefly in Al's band).
More poetic license one assumes.
(I do agree with Rocky about one thing -- Brian's band are astonishingly good -- though unlike him I'm basing that on actually having heard them play...)

Man, you really do suck when it comes to EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS, dontcha ?

First album Wilson Phillips (1990) - #2

Second album Shadows And Light (1992) - #4

First five singles:

1990:
Hold On - #1
Release Me - #1
Impulsive - #4

1991:
You're In Love - #1
The Dream is Still Alive - #12

Whatever you're paying your fact-checker, it ain't enough and never will be.

.

Custom Machine. Take a bow! :lol

Wasn't that settled by 2003?  Are you sure it wasn't something else?

Ok...Oregon must have his reasons but my post was in answer to a question he put to Rocky, now deleted.

I have started a  Rocky boycott.....

Your call.

Hmmmm, Rocky's answer to the same question, also gone. How very...conspiracy like. Very strange indeed....

Well, you're well, you're welcome ....

Where'd that stuff go ..... :)

Is this where we learn this was all an elaborate April fools prank?

I have it from a good source that a post from Rocky quoted a PM. That's a no-no and I presume that post could have been deleted for that reason. That source and / or the mods can choose to comment if they wish.

Indeed he did. Extensively.

So no one knows what "Jardine-Love case" Steve was deposed for in August 2006?

I'm guessing that Rocky was using some poetic license, Cam. He's an author.

No doubt, but Steve said this.

Not sure this is what he's talking about, but the Jardine/Love thing was still in the courts 2006.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-nixes-part-of-beach-boys-lawsuit/

Mentions a trial coming up in November. No idea if it actually happened.


Also found an article where it mentioned that everything was finally settled out of court in 2008.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/music/2008-03-21-4055191414_x.htm

Thanks. That's got to be it. I did not remember this suit.