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?

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

Agreed.  It's quite odd, isn't it?  And yet there's been no response as to what this has to do with Steve Love's credibility.    

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

["The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English.]

I picked up the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of Nikolai Leskov's "The Enchanted Wanderer and Other Stories." Having been a big fan of their Dostoevsky, Gogol, and Tolstoy translations, I am pretty excited about it. I also got Geza Vermes's "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English."

Interesting choice.  Do you know anything about the translation method used?  Also, does complete mean complete?  For example, more than one Isaiah scroll was found, including one complete scroll.  Is each one translated or is each variant noted in a single translation?  Or is it not completely complete?

EoL

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

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

EoL

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.

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 he thought 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

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.  

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

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.      

 

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

EoL

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 he thought 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

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.  

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

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

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

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?"

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

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

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

Given Al's incredible voice, not to mention his place in music history, I am surprised we have more artists utilizing him.  I think it would be incredible for an indie band to do an Al Jardine album, with Al on all of the leads.  Or maybe Al and a few guys creating a supergroup with a few indie guys and Al where Al takes the leads/duets.  I'm sort of out of it in relation to who is out there these days, but thinking back a few years to Wilco, Beulah, and the like, I think a great album could be created around this idea.

EoL

Wouldn't a tape of Stan and Rocky talking about third parties be hearsay?

Obviously.  That's the question: who is on the tape and who is under discussion?

EoL

Empire of... you got a bad name!  I TOLD YOU... STAN TAPED "HE and I" and it was taped with my CONSENT... which makes it PERMISSIBLE!

Hahaha.  No relation to ML.

EoL

Wouldn't a tape of Stan and Rocky talking about third parties be hearsay?

Obviously.  That's the question: who is on the tape and who is under discussion?

EoL

So is the story that the "heroin incident" was secretly taped not true?

Page 2... SNEAKY STAN TAPED IT... and that's not all STAN TAPED... 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, sincere questions here.  Assuming you mean that you lied in court for Mike's benefit, I have two questions:

1. Do you mean Mike was aware and wanted you to do so?
2. Why and how did you go from being hired to protect Brian to harming him?  Granted you were hired to protect him from drugs, not law suits, but still.  It seems you have respect for Brian as a person and artist.  What happened?

EoL

My initial assumption from this quote was that Rocky was claiming he testified and lied for Mike.  Upon re-reading it he does not state that he specifically testified amd lied, only that Stan taped a conversation wherein they discussed who was the better liar.  But who are the liars under consideration?  Stan and Rocky?  Stan and Steve?  Someone else altogether?  Rocky will need to clarify.  If he is referring to others then that partially answers my question above, perhaps he didn't actually testify and lie and therefore didn't really harm Brian, at least not directly.  It could be argued he could have exposed the tape earlier, but the consequences could have been steep for doing so.

Are there any quotes where he claims he testified?  Testimony would still be possible as he could testify that he heard conversations that supported Mike's claims, etc.  He would not need to be present when the songs were written in order to testify, he would only need to possession supporting information, but my guess is he is claiming he witnessed others committing perjury and a conversation about the perjury was taped.

Also, from what I've found online it seems the federal statute of limitations is five years, I am not certain if there are state laws that would supercede in a non-federal case and I assume this was a state case.

EoL

So is the story that the "heroin incident" was secretly taped not true?

Page 2... SNEAKY STAN TAPED IT... and that's not all STAN TAPED... 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, sincere questions here.  Assuming you mean that you lied in court for Mike's benefit, I have two questions:

1. Do you mean Mike was aware and wanted you to do so?
2. Why and how did you go from being hired to protect Brian to harming him?  Granted you were hired to protect him from drugs, not law suits, but still.  It seems you have respect for Brian as a person and artist.  What happened?

EoL

Sorry - I meant to ask this of Filledeplage from the previous discussion (Edit)

So, is this the article that needs to be moved to a different thread, or not?  If so, I'll post it that way.

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2016-03-05/kerns-love-providing-good-vibrations-original-beach-boy#.VtxOOvkrLIV

Just read this for the first time.  It is completely dismissive of Melinda.  I am surprised he was ever on the guest list.  Go buy a ticket like everybody else indeed.

EoL

I'm not sure my image link is going to work but if it does, it is just going to be a solid blue, hardback cover, not even for the book I'm reading but another in the same series which looks exactly the same except for the title on the spine.

This one?

That is the one, or at least an instance of it.   

Domain of Being/Ontology, by Celestine Bittle.



I'm not sure my image link is going to work but if it does, it is just going to be a solid blue, hardback cover, not even for the book I'm reading but another in the same series which looks exactly the same except for the title on the spine.

What it is about:

In essence, virtually all of philosophy can be broken into two groups, realism and idealism.  Bittle is a moderate realist, as am I.  I am reading this book (and most of the series) because though I've read more than my fair share of philosophy throughout the years I have never systematically worked through my position, so I am attempting to do that now.  

Why it is important:

As at any given time in history we are being governed (whether externally or internally or both) by one of these two systems, in one way or another, and usually more ways than one, through academia, government, literature, news, etc, it seems good to familiarize oneself with both systems.  Yet I have found most people are unaware of either system, though examples can be multiplied of where these ideas overlap and directly influence our day to day lives.  Why then should one be governed unknowingly by these things rather than knowingly?  Perhaps one will find one prefers one system to the other and will take steps to align oneself accordingly.

EoL

Leave personalities out of it for the moment. Say that writer A and writer B collaborate on a number of songs over a number of years. The music publisher systematically leaves writer B off the credits, with writer A then getting all the money and all the acclaim.

Does writer A have a moral responsibility to writer B to do all that is in his power to rectify the situation? If so, in this case is there evidence that Brian made serious efforts to rectify the ongoing situation?

I don't see anyone denying that writer A has a moral responsibility to do everything in his power to rectify the injustice dealt to writer B.  What is being argued is two things:

1. Writer A was limited in power at least due to his fragile mental state, past abuse, and fear of future abuse.  Just as in a court of law, even for killing someone, there is an insanity plea, so some are arguing something similar for Writer A.  Was he insane, not exactly, but were his abilities impaired to the point of lessening his legal culpability?  Arguably, yes.  The question is: does this also limit his moral culpability?  I think a case can be made that it does.

2. Writer B also has a responsibility to stand up for himself, but he didn't.  Why not?  Whatever the answer is, he feared the publisher would seek retribution, he feared the publisher would fire him, etc, any excuse that gets Writer B off the hook would equally apply to Writer A.  If B didn't stand up for himself out of fear and that is ok, why not give the same benefit to A?  Granted the publisher could not have fired Writer A (because he was the golden goose, whereas Writer B was more replaceable), yet we know the publisher used other forms of manipulation to control Writer A, that's what people like this do.  No doubt the fear for A would have been as real as the fear for B.

To me, to blame Brian while letting Mike off the hook is not fair.  In most cases one would look at Brian and assume he was in on it because he stood to profit.  However, in this case, we know Murry was truly abusive, physically, emotionally, mentally, and who knows how else, to an already fragile Brian and that he screwed Brian by selling the catalog - proof Brian also had reason to fear crossing his father.  To find more fault with Brian than with Mike is unfair.  As GF is pointing out, Mike agreed with this assessment in 2004.  I want to know why he has changed his tune in the intervening years?

EoL