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.

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."

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.

 
 
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.        

-----
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

[except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order]

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

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.

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

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.    

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

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.

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!  

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?"

They're just jealous because a fan made a video about Mike's Beach Boys and not cuHsin brYhan's terrible tribute band.

 

They're just jealous because a fan made a video about Mike's Beach Boys and not cuHsin brYhan's terrible tribute band.

Watching cuHsin brYhan half-heartedly mumble the words while awkwardly snapping his fingers shows just how much Mike was needed to be the frontman and keep up the energy.  That's why the current Beach Boys shows are a million times better than brYhan's tribute act shows. 

 

Watching cuHsin brYhan half-heartedly mumble the words while awkwardly snapping his fingers shows just how much Mike was needed to be the frontman and keep up the energy.  That's why the current Beach Boys shows are a million times better than brYhan's tribute act shows. 

Personally, I love it... great production, vocals... clever tag...

 

Brilliant!  Way better than anything on that hack brYhan's awful No Pier Pressure.  This shows Mike was the true songwriting genius of the group.

A: Kokomo, because it showed Mike was the true genius of the group, not cuHsin brYhan.

You forgot "and without Mike, cuSsin' brYhan would have been pumpin' gas for a living".

 

A: Kokomo, because it showed Mike was the true genius of the group, not cuHsin brYhan.

The band survived decades of public display of its own embarrassing behaviors, I doubt the occasional appearance with a handsome well known uber fan is a problem with the band's image/legacy.

 

I think where most people have their head up their ass about this stuff is, we hear the music and think of the band artistically because of the way it makes us feel when we hear the music.  This bleeds over into every conversation about the band.

The band, however, Brian included, sees the band as a vehicle to make money.  Every single one of them has said this, and it's their job, so of course that's how they see it.  The artistic parts of it are fulfilling but they work at this to make money.  It's their job.  

Mike is the one that has made that job make them money for over 50 years now.  When Mike's out playing the Mohecian Sun casino or playing some stupid fair in Nebraska, he sends Brian and the others a nice fat piece of it in the mail.  

Brian's genius gave them the wonderful music that people want to hear in the first place, but everybody knows you don't make money in the music industry without touring.  Brian's probably attended 1/10th of the Beach Boys live shows and has gotten paid for 10/10 of them.  Why in the world Mike gets blamed for that I will never know.  

 

cuHsin brYhan couldn't tour after his mental breakdown, and with no Mike there would be nobody who could be a frontman.  The lack of touring presence surely would have killed the chances of any resurgent popularity, and the band would have faded into obscurity.

brYhan probably asked for it to be deleted, since he can't stand that he's living in Mike's shadow and plays way fewer shows.