Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Debbie KL]

So the only problem with the suit was residency?  Not according to the judge.  You are grasping at straws and diverting attention.  It's getting old here.

It looks quite like a pattern of telling "convenient truths" or untruths, as needed.  The judge didn't buy it.

[HeyJude]

There are many factors for a decision on residence..."it is where you intend to return." - He could have spent more time in CA than Nevada.   Some people spend more time at a vacation home than in the home that is judged to be the residence.  

Yes, FdP, but he first listed Nevada as his residence. He then switched it after the court threw it back, with advice of counsel - it was a lie as was much else in this suit.
As Add Some says "Gawd!"
Give it up. There is NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION for this action. The judges see that - they were very clear; everyone one this board does; anyone who's ever written about it does. It was Mike Love's low point. It was wrong for him to do. I'm glad he doesn't bring it up and try to justify it and it doesn't make him look better for anyone else to.

Just to make this more tedious, as that seems to be the game here to distract people from the odious qualities of this suit - I’ve seen this residency argument many times.  I had to work a lot with attorneys about legal residency in California because of my former employer and benefits that were afforded to CA residents.  One normally had to declare a primary and secondary residence and show that the person him/herself had to reside there a number of months, etc.  

Many wealthy CA residents who didn’t like the taxes and licenses that were required in CA would establish a residence in OR, AZ or particularly in NV for the tax breaks. They might have relatives living in residences they owned in CA, but had other “primary residences” outside CA.  A person wouldn’t be able to claim a NV residence for personal and business tax purposes, then claim the benefits of the State of CA when they so desired for legal purposes.  Evidence was needed of actual residency.  I suspect that any CA judge would be aware of this and make decisions accordingly.

Debbie KL - people do establish residences for any number of reasons.  Florida is a hot place because of their homestead protections and/or the taxes.  They do it all over the world.  Depardieu moved "technically" from France to avoid taxes.  It isn't a new thing and clearly you have said you have seen it so it is not uncommon.   

It is odious to some, but I can see a legal rationale, based on the business interest, whether it prevailed or not.  Using the photos however small, might not have made sense. But it was not enforceable in CA, because it was judged to be extra-terrritorial.   
This discussion second-guesses decisions made well over 10 years ago.   

It sounds like you're second-guessing the court's decision. They looked at the "legal rationale" for the California residence tactic, and shot it down.

I don't think anyone is saying they find the concept of multiple state residences as inherently "odious", but rather some folks (and the judges in the case) found that in *that* particular 2005 case, it was an attempt that warranted not simply a negative court ruling, but an "admonishment" from the court.

[Emily]

There are many factors for a decision on residence..."it is where you intend to return." - He could have spent more time in CA than Nevada.   Some people spend more time at a vacation home than in the home that is judged to be the residence.  

Yes, FdP, but he first listed Nevada as his residence. He then switched it after the court threw it back, with advice of counsel - it was a lie as was much else in this suit.
As Add Some says "Gawd!"
Give it up. There is NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION for this action. The judges see that - they were very clear; everyone one this board does; anyone who's ever written about it does. It was Mike Love's low point. It was wrong for him to do. I'm glad he doesn't bring it up and try to justify it and it doesn't make him look better for anyone else to.

Yep. We've all done stupid and malicious things at times, and this is one of Mike's. Doesn't necessarily make him a bad person, just a person who once did a bad thing. Attempts to whitewash it don't actually make Mike seem any better -- any more than the deliberate interpretations of his actions in the worst possible light by some posters on "the other side" (not especially in this thread) make him seem worse.
I think Mike has often been treated unfairly by the press and fans, but I don't think he's *always* been treated unfairly, and going to ridiculous extremes the other way (to the point, as in filledeplage's earlier post, of apparently denying that morality can ever enter into business decisions) won't improve his reputation.

I agree 100%

[filledeplage]

So the only problem with the suit was residency?  Not according to the judge.  You are grasping at straws and diverting attention.  It's getting old here.

It looks quite like a pattern of telling "convenient truths" or untruths, as needed.  The judge didn't buy it.

That you or I agree with the court is not the issue and of no consequence.  It is a done deal.  And one question, among others for this interview.  

If "you" saw "your" photo on a product, being marketed anywhere would you not inquire about your legal rights?      

[Lee Marshall]

Concern over dampening ticket sales should be the WATCHWORD now.  This ongoing poop and the upcoming book may well KILL ticket sales and everyone will lose.  The court laughed all of this shyte out the door...and now it goes to the court of public opinion?  NO ONE will win.

Again.  I was forced to sue a company for using my recordings when they were not legally allowed to do so.  They pulled the typical thing here which it would appear Mike tried to do to Brian.  Make the thing SO BIG...SO LOUD...SO FULL of this, that and the next thing that the so-called/presumed weaker side just steps back and quits or gives up.  It was an attempt to bully the other side into losing the case....before it hit the courtroom steps.

It didn't work.  Not with me/not with Brian.  I was initially laughed at, snickered at and ridiculed while being offered a meaningless and token payoff just to go away.  A  small 4 figures offer subsequently became a significant 6 figures settlement...on the courtroom steps.

People KNOW what their lawyers are doing...why...and what the potential outcome might be.  In Canada things are settled on the courtroom steps [at the last minute] because judges don't like people wasting the court's time when a reasonable offer is finally procured.  They might even PUNISH you for not accepting a reasonable offer by dropping the amount offered to a less attractive amount.  Settling also cuts down on costs.  I ended up with 1/2 of what I figured would be the best case scenario as opposed to 1 /65th of it.  It was probably fair[ish].

[Debbie KL]

So the only problem with the suit was residency?  Not according to the judge.  You are grasping at straws and diverting attention.  It's getting old here.

It looks quite like a pattern of telling "convenient truths" or untruths, as needed.  The judge didn't buy it.

That you or I agree with the court is not the issue and of no consequence.  It is a done deal.  And one question, among others for this interview.  

If "you" saw "your" photo on a product, being marketed anywhere would you not inquire about your legal rights?      

Interestingly, Brian or Al could make that objection almost any day of the week that the "Beach Boys" - meaning Mike's band - have been promoting themselves on tour since 2012, and someone uses an old photo including them, from decades ago or the C50 tour, and people actually buy tickets with that assumption. After the C50 tour, it has happened so often it's impossible to even follow - but I'm not seeing a major lawsuit from Brian or Al, so explain to me again about how this photo makes the obvious lies in this 2005-2010 suit acceptable?

[The_Beach]

This is why I still am a fan of Mike Love! He is everyone's scapegoat although he did bring a lot of the crap on himself too. but having Mike love hate groups isn't going to change a single thing! What is done is done! After 20 30 years of hating on Mike changes absolutely nothing! Its  time now to just start enjoying everything he has done for and with the Beach Boys!  

[filledeplage]

So the only problem with the suit was residency?  Not according to the judge.  You are grasping at straws and diverting attention.  It's getting old here.

It looks quite like a pattern of telling "convenient truths" or untruths, as needed.  The judge didn't buy it.

That you or I agree with the court is not the issue and of no consequence.  It is a done deal.  And one question, among others for this interview.  

If "you" saw "your" photo on a product, being marketed anywhere would you not inquire about your legal rights?      

Interestingly, Brian or Al could make that objection almost any day of the week that the "Beach Boys" - meaning Mike's band - have been promoting themselves on tour since 2012, and someone uses an old photo including them, from decades ago or the C50 tour, and people actually buy tickets with that assumption. After the C50 tour, it has happened so often it's impossible to even follow - but I'm not seeing a major lawsuit from Brian or Al, so explain to me again about how this photo that makes the obvious lies in this 2005-2010 suit acceptable?

It is apples and oranges.  It was a CD and not a tour.   And, often the promoters erroneously, take "license" where they use the wrong photo.  

The prime issue was whether the Lanham Act was enforceable outside the US, in the UK.  

[Debbie KL]

So the only problem with the suit was residency?  Not according to the judge.  You are grasping at straws and diverting attention.  It's getting old here.

It looks quite like a pattern of telling "convenient truths" or untruths, as needed.  The judge didn't buy it.

That you or I agree with the court is not the issue and of no consequence.  It is a done deal.  And one question, among others for this interview.  

If "you" saw "your" photo on a product, being marketed anywhere would you not inquire about your legal rights?      

Interestingly, Brian or Al could make that objection almost any day of the week that the "Beach Boys" - meaning Mike's band - have been promoting themselves on tour since 2012, and someone uses an old photo including them, from decades ago or the C50 tour, and people actually buy tickets with that assumption. After the C50 tour, it has happened so often it's impossible to even follow - but I'm not seeing a major lawsuit from Brian or Al, so explain to me again about how this photo that makes the obvious lies in this 2005-2010 suit acceptable?

It is apples and oranges.  It was a CD and not a tour.   And, often the promoters erroneously, take "license" where they use the wrong photo.  

The prime issue was whether the Lanham Act was enforceable outside the US, in the UK.  

Of course, it had nothing to do with honesty or ethical behavior.  You've made that clear for several pages now.

[Lee Marshall]

This is why I still am a fan of Mike Love! He is everyone's scapegoat although he did bring a lot of the crap on himself too. but having Mike love hate groups isn't going to change a single thing! What is done is done! After 20 30 years of hating on Mike changes absolutely nothing! Its  time now to just start enjoying everything he has done for and with the Beach Boys!  

I'd say 97.5% of us agree with that.  Maybe 98%.  Unfortunately...AND THIS IS THE POINT...Mike doesn't

[filledeplage]

So the only problem with the suit was residency?  Not according to the judge.  You are grasping at straws and diverting attention.  It's getting old here.

It looks quite like a pattern of telling "convenient truths" or untruths, as needed.  The judge didn't buy it.

That you or I agree with the court is not the issue and of no consequence.  It is a done deal.  And one question, among others for this interview.  

If "you" saw "your" photo on a product, being marketed anywhere would you not inquire about your legal rights?      

Interestingly, Brian or Al could make that objection almost any day of the week that the "Beach Boys" - meaning Mike's band - have been promoting themselves on tour since 2012, and someone uses an old photo including them, from decades ago or the C50 tour, and people actually buy tickets with that assumption. After the C50 tour, it has happened so often it's impossible to even follow - but I'm not seeing a major lawsuit from Brian or Al, so explain to me again about how this photo that makes the obvious lies in this 2005-2010 suit acceptable?

It is apples and oranges.  It was a CD and not a tour.   And, often the promoters erroneously, take "license" where they use the wrong photo.  

The prime issue was whether the Lanham Act was enforceable outside the US, in the UK.  

Of course, it had nothing to do with honesty or ethical behavior.  You've made that clear for several pages now.

It is about "standing."  

Calling it honest or ethical is a value judgment.  

[SMiLE Brian]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

[Debbie KL]

Shame on me, then!  Referring to your "standing" comment FdP. 

Seriously, you're going to keep doing this, aren't you?  In spite of all human logic and the presiding judge.

[filledeplage]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work. 

"Standing" is your right to inquire. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Which a ten minute phone call would have solved without a lawsuit and harassing BW to no end. Just admit Mike was wrong for once and I will call it a day.

[Debbie KL]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work. 

"Standing" is your right to inquire. 

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

[filledeplage]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work. 

"Standing" is your right to inquire. 

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal. 

[Debbie KL]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work.  

"Standing" is your right to inquire.  

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal.  

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

As delightful as this has been.  I have to attend to real life for an hour or so.  Thanks for the entertainment.

[SMiLE Brian]

This legal stuff is a red herring for Mike Love being an "ass".

[filledeplage]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work. 

"Standing" is your right to inquire. 

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal. 

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

To me, it is the "legal" right not "whether it is right."

[Emily]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work.  

"Standing" is your right to inquire.  

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal.  

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

To me, it is the "legal" right not "whether it is right."

No one here argued he had no legal right. The only ones who expressed disagreement with that were the judges.

[The_Beach]

This is why I still am a fan of Mike Love! He is everyone's scapegoat although he did bring a lot of the crap on himself too. but having Mike love hate groups isn't going to change a single thing! What is done is done! After 20 30 years of hating on Mike changes absolutely nothing! Its  time now to just start enjoying everything he has done for and with the Beach Boys!  

I'd say 97.5% of us agree with that.  Maybe 98%.  Unfortunately...AND THIS IS THE POINT...Mike doesn't

Yeah your right about that!!! Mike just needs to realize that Brian isn't really the factor why he has gotten all the credit over the years and why he wasn't able to settle stuff instead of a lawsuit! A lot of it is due to his uncle murry and in the 80s/ 90s a lot of it the lawsuit wasn't settled so easily was everyone that was around Brian like Dr. Landy.

Its more of a complicated family mater that we all have and the fans shouldn't try to get in between!  I just wish Mike Love and Brian could make up and get together again before its to late!

But yeah people do try to victimize Mike Love for sure!

[SMiLE Brian]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work. 

"Standing" is your right to inquire. 

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal. 

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

To me, it is the "legal" right not "whether it is right."

just admit Mike was wrong!

[filledeplage]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work. 

"Standing" is your right to inquire. 

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal. 

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

To me, it is the "legal" right not "whether it is right."

just admit Mike was wrong!

Well, Smile Brian - I am not on the stand!   

[CenturyDeprived]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work.  

"Standing" is your right to inquire.  

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal.  

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

To me, it is the "legal" right not "whether it is right."

just admit Mike was wrong!

Well, Smile Brian - I am not on the stand!  

FDP: would you ever be able to quantify any rock star as having acted in a way that YOU would say was wrong? Is it possible?  How about Gary Glitter, Phil Spector?  Just how hard is it to say it? It's like watching the Fonz try to say he's sorrrr....

Are actions like child molestation/murder the only actions that you can bring yourself to admit are wrong? No less action could possibly qualify as being wrong?