gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 01:25:41 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 83 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?  (Read 489951 times)
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #625 on: January 13, 2016, 09:20:48 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #626 on: January 13, 2016, 09:23:59 AM »

and the dog biting thing is not analogous. With the dog biting, you are having someone file a claim after the injury. What you seem to be arguing is that Asher should have filed a claim before the injury.

Quite. It's nonsensical, even if one accepts (as I definitely don't) that it is the responsibility of a victim to rectify an injustice, rather than the responsibility of the perpetrator not to act unjustly.

(And again, I'm not saying that Mike acted unjustly. I think that in the vast majority of the songs he sued over, he made at least some contribution, and in some that contribution was hugely important).
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #627 on: January 13, 2016, 09:28:59 AM »

I don't think anyone (except possibly Murry then Landy) acted with the intention of injustice*; I do think the outcome has been pretty consistently unjust.
I've looked some stuff up - evidently, if Asher felt that the money and probably extreme stress of getting involved in a BB lawsuit was worth it, he can have asked (but BW's lawyers, I think, can have refused) to be added as a third party defendant.
He chose not to do so, or if he did, he was refused. If he considered it at all, I can sympathize with the decision not to do it, if that's what happened. If he did, it wouldn't surprise me if Brian Wilson's lawyers, (given the reports of them) refused.
In any case, the outcome was unjust.

*and of course, to a degree, every lawyer in an adversarial system.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 09:43:36 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #628 on: January 13, 2016, 09:30:39 AM »

It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strong strain in US philosophical thought that differs with that idea.
Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim. It seems he was an ad (I think) writer so he is a professional in the publication business.  And, if the judge decided that he did, then his name would be entered as a Plaintiff, alongside Mike's.  

So the complaint would read something like this "Michael Love, Tony Asher v. Brian Wilson."  (It would likely be the entities named as well.) But, Asher would likely have to be a party and testify one way or the other as to his contributions and his lawyer argue for him.  

You perceive him to be a victim.  He apparently took no action.  Had he gone to the court, and asked to be added as a plaintiff the court would have decided whether he was or not.  It does not matter what he was "thinking" and that is irrelevant.  

Once the file is claim, the world is "on notice."  That is why there is a system of notice, for many claims in the newspapers, whether for custody, or class action injuries from a product.

That was on him and his lawyer.  Not on Mike, after the award was made.  Remember, Mike offered to settle for far less than the court award, so I would guess it was a surprise if not a shock to him.   Wink

The system is what it is.  
He did not have a claim until after the case. So the judge would have not put his name on the case. He would've had to file a new claim after the the first judgment. That he decided not to does not mean there was no injustice.
If you have an instance of a person being allowed to sue someone though they had no claim against him, please show it. It's not my understanding that it's permitted. Perhaps I'm wrong.
The "it's on him" philosophy is yours, not mine.
To me, it matters what he was thinking and to me it's not irrelevant. To me, people's feelings matter.

and the dog biting thing is not analogous. With the dog biting, you are having someone file a claim after the injury. What you seem to be arguing is that Asher should have filed a claim before the injury.

Emily - whatever his "injury" was, and I am not privy to his contract/s, then it is up to him to notify the court that he was "wronged" and not for the smiley smile court of appeal to debate it.  Did he? Just as food for thought;  Mike's name should have been on all those millions of albums, and millions of singles, and was not.  That lack of proper attribution may have been part of the complaint and part of the remedy.  

Yes, the dog biting example, is analogous, relative to naming a party that has an entity attached to it.  For reaching the asset of the insurance policy to make the person "whole."  There was a recent case in the media, which got global attention, where a kid's dog bit his aunt.  She had to name the kid, who owned the dog, and her nephew in order to reach the asset of the insurance policy.  Sounds cruel but that is the way the system is.  
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #629 on: January 13, 2016, 09:32:19 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes
Mike offered to settle for under that amount.  The court fixed the amount. 
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #630 on: January 13, 2016, 09:35:31 AM »

I don't think anyone (except possibly Murry then Landy) acted with the intention of injustice*; I do think the outcome has been pretty consistently unjust.
I've looked some stuff up - evidently, if Asher felt that the money and probably extreme stress of getting involved in a BB lawsuit was worth it, he can have asked (but BW's lawyers, I think, can have refused) to be added as a third party defendant.
He chose not to do so, or if he did, he was refused. If he considered it at all, I can sympathize with the decision not to do it, if that's what happened. If he did, it wouldn't surprise me if Brian Wilson's lawyers, given the reports of them) refused.
In any case, the outcome was unjust.

*and of course, to a degree, every lawyer in an adversarial system.
Third-party.      

There you go.   LOL  

He would have to show he was a stakeholder in the outcome of the action.  And that he had related claims in the action.  
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 09:48:49 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #631 on: January 13, 2016, 09:48:45 AM »

It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strong strain in US philosophical thought that differs with that idea.
Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim. It seems he was an ad (I think) writer so he is a professional in the publication business.  And, if the judge decided that he did, then his name would be entered as a Plaintiff, alongside Mike's.  

So the complaint would read something like this "Michael Love, Tony Asher v. Brian Wilson."  (It would likely be the entities named as well.) But, Asher would likely have to be a party and testify one way or the other as to his contributions and his lawyer argue for him.  

You perceive him to be a victim.  He apparently took no action.  Had he gone to the court, and asked to be added as a plaintiff the court would have decided whether he was or not.  It does not matter what he was "thinking" and that is irrelevant.  

Once the file is claim, the world is "on notice."  That is why there is a system of notice, for many claims in the newspapers, whether for custody, or class action injuries from a product.

That was on him and his lawyer.  Not on Mike, after the award was made.  Remember, Mike offered to settle for far less than the court award, so I would guess it was a surprise if not a shock to him.   Wink

The system is what it is.  
He did not have a claim until after the case. So the judge would have not put his name on the case. He would've had to file a new claim after the the first judgment. That he decided not to does not mean there was no injustice.
If you have an instance of a person being allowed to sue someone though they had no claim against him, please show it. It's not my understanding that it's permitted. Perhaps I'm wrong.
The "it's on him" philosophy is yours, not mine.
To me, it matters what he was thinking and to me it's not irrelevant. To me, people's feelings matter.

and the dog biting thing is not analogous. With the dog biting, you are having someone file a claim after the injury. What you seem to be arguing is that Asher should have filed a claim before the injury.

Emily - whatever his "injury" was, and I am not privy to his contract/s, then it is up to him to notify the court that he was "wronged" and not for the smiley smile court of appeal to debate it.  Did he? Just as food for thought;  Mike's name should have been on all those millions of albums, and millions of singles, and was not.  That lack of proper attribution may have been part of the complaint and part of the remedy.  

Yes, the dog biting example, is analogous, relative to naming a party that has an entity attached to it.  For reaching the asset of the insurance policy to make the person "whole."  There was a recent case in the media, which got global attention, where a kid's dog bit his aunt.  She had to name the kid, who owned the dog, and her nephew in order to reach the asset of the insurance policy.  Sounds cruel but that is the way the system is.  
I absolutely understand that to sue an insurance claim you have to name the person who holds the insurance. So what? What has that to do with when or if Asher should or did file a claim, whether it's reasonable to object to injustice even if the victim is not acting on their own behalf and whether the current distribution is just?

Again, we have a philosophical difference. You appear to be saying that whether or not a court finding is just, the "smiley smile court of appeal" is in no position to debate it. I disagree. If there is an unjust finding in court, I feel perfectly comfortable with it being debated, and I think any injustice should be debated.
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #632 on: January 13, 2016, 09:49:32 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes

Between 1965 and 1989, just when was this period Mike should have gone after a non- weakened Brian?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #633 on: January 13, 2016, 09:51:50 AM »

I don't think anyone (except possibly Murry then Landy) acted with the intention of injustice*; I do think the outcome has been pretty consistently unjust.
I've looked some stuff up - evidently, if Asher felt that the money and probably extreme stress of getting involved in a BB lawsuit was worth it, he can have asked (but BW's lawyers, I think, can have refused) to be added as a third party defendant.
He chose not to do so, or if he did, he was refused. If he considered it at all, I can sympathize with the decision not to do it, if that's what happened. If he did, it wouldn't surprise me if Brian Wilson's lawyers, given the reports of them) refused.
In any case, the outcome was unjust.

*and of course, to a degree, every lawyer in an adversarial system.
Third-party.      

There you go.   LOL  

He would have to show he was a stakeholder in the outcome of the action.  And that he had related claims in the action.  
Yes, but Brian Wilson's team would have had to bring him in. He could not have entered the suit on his own.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #634 on: January 13, 2016, 09:53:56 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes

Between 1965 and 1989, just when was this period Mike should have gone after a non- weakened Brian?
Really, he should have gone after Murry right off the bat in 1962-1963.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #635 on: January 13, 2016, 09:56:16 AM »

It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strong strain in US philosophical thought that differs with that idea.
Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim. It seems he was an ad (I think) writer so he is a professional in the publication business.  And, if the judge decided that he did, then his name would be entered as a Plaintiff, alongside Mike's.  

So the complaint would read something like this "Michael Love, Tony Asher v. Brian Wilson."  (It would likely be the entities named as well.) But, Asher would likely have to be a party and testify one way or the other as to his contributions and his lawyer argue for him.  

You perceive him to be a victim.  He apparently took no action.  Had he gone to the court, and asked to be added as a plaintiff the court would have decided whether he was or not.  It does not matter what he was "thinking" and that is irrelevant.  

Once the file is claim, the world is "on notice."  That is why there is a system of notice, for many claims in the newspapers, whether for custody, or class action injuries from a product.

That was on him and his lawyer.  Not on Mike, after the award was made.  Remember, Mike offered to settle for far less than the court award, so I would guess it was a surprise if not a shock to him.   Wink

The system is what it is.  
He did not have a claim until after the case. So the judge would have not put his name on the case. He would've had to file a new claim after the the first judgment. That he decided not to does not mean there was no injustice.
If you have an instance of a person being allowed to sue someone though they had no claim against him, please show it. It's not my understanding that it's permitted. Perhaps I'm wrong.
The "it's on him" philosophy is yours, not mine.
To me, it matters what he was thinking and to me it's not irrelevant. To me, people's feelings matter.

and the dog biting thing is not analogous. With the dog biting, you are having someone file a claim after the injury. What you seem to be arguing is that Asher should have filed a claim before the injury.

Emily - whatever his "injury" was, and I am not privy to his contract/s, then it is up to him to notify the court that he was "wronged" and not for the smiley smile court of appeal to debate it.  Did he? Just as food for thought;  Mike's name should have been on all those millions of albums, and millions of singles, and was not.  That lack of proper attribution may have been part of the complaint and part of the remedy.  

Yes, the dog biting example, is analogous, relative to naming a party that has an entity attached to it.  For reaching the asset of the insurance policy to make the person "whole."  There was a recent case in the media, which got global attention, where a kid's dog bit his aunt.  She had to name the kid, who owned the dog, and her nephew in order to reach the asset of the insurance policy.  Sounds cruel but that is the way the system is.  
I absolutely understand that to sue an insurance claim you have to name the person who holds the insurance. So what? What has that to do with when or if Asher should or did file a claim, whether it's reasonable to object to injustice even if the victim is not acting on their own behalf and whether the current distribution is just?

Again, we have a philosophical difference. You appear to be saying that whether or not a court finding is just, the "smiley smile court of appeal" is in no position to debate it. I disagree. If there is an unjust finding in court, I feel perfectly comfortable with it being debated, and I think any injustice should be debated.
It is not philosophical.  It relates to the case which was interesting.  There are a lot of very interesting music copyright cases as well.  

Unless, generally, I have read the complaint and the pre-trial material, where the judge has "weeded the garden" of issues not relevant, transcript, and the court holding, it is just another discussion.   "You can't count someone else's money," a wise colleague once told me.  LOL
 
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #636 on: January 13, 2016, 10:00:17 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes

Between 1965 and 1989, just when was this period Mike should have gone after a non- weakened Brian?
Really, he should have gone after Murry right off the bat in 1962-1963.
Don't you think the court recognized the impossibly difficult dynamics filing a family suit like that, and how Murry might have caused the breakup of the band, as a result, with his still-minor (for contract purposes) kids in it? 

He was not going after Brian as much as the "entity" that was set up. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #637 on: January 13, 2016, 10:08:46 AM »


It is not philosophical.  It relates to the case which was interesting.  There are a lot of very interesting music copyright cases as well.  

Unless, generally, I have read the complaint and the pre-trial material, where the judge has "weeded the garden" of issues not relevant, transcript, and the court holding, it is just another discussion.   "You can't count someone else's money," a wise colleague once told me.  LOL
 
You have expressed several times "it's on him" as though an objection to an injustice is not to be made if the injured person did not take action to rectify the injustice. That's philosophical and it's not a philosophy to which I adhere.

Yes it's a discussion. And yes you can count someone else's money.  Huh

This is getting really petty.
The bottom line is, he didn't act in his defense, which would've required filing a new claim after the first trial concluded, unless Brian Wilson's team admitted him to their defense as a third party.  The outcome of that trial is perceived to have been unjust by several people. The fact that Asher did not act in his defense does not reduce the sense that some people have that the finding was unjust.

Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #638 on: January 13, 2016, 10:24:27 AM »


It is not philosophical.  It relates to the case which was interesting.  There are a lot of very interesting music copyright cases as well.  

Unless, generally, I have read the complaint and the pre-trial material, where the judge has "weeded the garden" of issues not relevant, transcript, and the court holding, it is just another discussion.   "You can't count someone else's money," a wise colleague once told me.  LOL
 
You have expressed several times "it's on him" as though an objection to an injustice is not to be made if the injured person did not take action to rectify the injustice. That's philosophical and it's not a philosophy to which I adhere.

Yes it's a discussion. And yes you can count someone else's money.  Huh

This is getting really petty.
The bottom line is, he didn't act in his defense, which would've required filing a new claim after the first trial concluded, unless Brian Wilson's team admitted him to their defense as a third party.  The outcome of that trial is perceived to have been unjust by several people. The fact that Asher did not act in his defense does not reduce the sense that some people have that the finding was unjust.
This all depends on what the rules of procedure in the court were followed to join a party.  You just can't invite yourself to the party. Pun intended.  You have to be a stakeholder on either side.  

Parties (persons or entities) may be "joined" in a suit if they show they have "standing" or as I said earlier are "stakeholders" in the suit.  And that asks whether someone's rights have been or will be affected one way or another.  

There is no doubt that some feel it is not a just result.  

And, I am not looking at the kind of job Brian's or Mike's lawyers did, and just the result.  It was no secret as to who were the names on the label.  

There are too many unknowns to speculate about.  Speculation is ridiculous.  Wink

And you can count someone's money if you are their guardian or parent.  You only know what is in your pocket. The rest is an estimate.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 10:28:22 AM by filledeplage » Logged
LeeDempsey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 749


Avatar: Brian Wilson circa 1957


View Profile
« Reply #639 on: January 13, 2016, 10:37:18 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes

I am about as big of a Brian fan as you could ever meet, and even I know that not to be true...  Mike was willing to settle for co-credits on all future BB releases and a token amount ($750,000).  Brian's legal team advised Brian that they were certain that he would win, and advised him not to settle.   That advice cost Brian $4,250,000.

Lee
Logged
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #640 on: January 13, 2016, 11:17:25 AM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes

I am about as big of a Brian fan as you could ever meet, and even I know that not to be true...  Mike was willing to settle for co-credits on all future BB releases and a token amount ($750,000).  Brian's legal team advised Brian that they were certain that he would win, and advised him not to settle.   That advice cost Brian $4,250,000.

Lee









This will be unpopular around here, but I don't care.

If I was Brian's lawyer, I would have fought that tooth and nail. On paper, Brian SHOULD have won. It's too easy to look back 20 years later and go "Brian's greedy idiot lawyers".  But, looking back, I thought Brian's case was stronger.  The only problem was he folded during tbe trial.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 11:19:18 AM by Andy Botwin » Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #641 on: January 13, 2016, 12:04:31 PM »

    Debbie KL,   you my dear are the "clearest" person on this Smilely Smile "COURT OF APPEALS DEBATE TEAM" for you have expressed a concern and interest in what Stephen Love has been doing? The Gentleman responsible for SAVING Brian's LIFE! Well, I can tell you what he has been doing wiith himself... Stephen has been "SURFING" in Hanalei Bay Kauai for the last 20 years... where he also resides! YES... "SURFING"... he moved there, and "SURFS" to maintain his SANITY!! I can also tell you Stephen is well respected by the locals and is considered "FAMILY" (kamaina as they say). I have visited him a number of times, as others have, and we can all attest to the sentiment that he is considered a Local Treasure! Stephen lives with a beautiful girl named Cathy Moe, who also graduated "Magna Cum Laude" from U.C.L.A., and after having worked for Disney for 10 yrs she has written a Horoscope column for a Japanese Magazine for the last 17 yrs! I would like to assure you Debbie that Stephen not only lives a very serene and satisfying life "SURFING" in Kauai, the Garden Island, with his many friends enjoying the Aloha Spirit of Paradise but most importantly is "HAPPY" Smiley HAPPY Smiley HAPPY Smiley Island Life and... SURFING will do that for you! Debbie... Stephen called me and asked me to THANK YOU for your kind words and send you a warm Aloha!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 03:42:08 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
jeffh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


View Profile
« Reply #642 on: January 13, 2016, 12:22:41 PM »

Rocky, what are YOU doing NOW. Recently you told us what you did in the past, but what are you doing currently as a livelihood?
Logged
SteveMC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile
« Reply #643 on: January 13, 2016, 12:32:59 PM »

The idea that Asher didn't want to spend on possible legal fees seems very plausible to me.  I know of similar situations with other bands.
Logged

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys said of Reynolds: "[He's] just about a god to me. His work is the greatest, and the Freshmen's execution is too much."
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #644 on: January 13, 2016, 12:42:25 PM »

  Brian's legal team advised Brian that they were certain that he would win, and advised him not to settle.   That advice cost Brian $4,250,000.

Lee

More like $9,250,000. His legal fees were said to be about  $5 million. He essentially lost all the lump sum from the publishing case. No wonder he sued his legal team.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
adamghost
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2107



View Profile
« Reply #645 on: January 13, 2016, 12:47:37 PM »

I don't see why it's so hard to acknowledge that it kind of sucks for Asher to either have his credit for the song reduced, or go through a great deal of trouble and expense to insinuate himself into legal proceedings conducted by greater powers over issues that are 99.9% someone else's problems.  Yes, he could have done this or that, but it still sucks for Asher either way.  The end.
Logged
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #646 on: January 13, 2016, 01:05:50 PM »

  Brian's legal team advised Brian that they were certain that he would win, and advised him not to settle.   That advice cost Brian $4,250,000.

Lee

More like $9,250,000. His legal fees were said to be about  $5 million. He essentially lost all the lump sum from the publishing case. No wonder he sued his legal team.

Did he win?
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #647 on: January 13, 2016, 01:11:04 PM »

No idea. I truly hope so.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #648 on: January 13, 2016, 01:13:35 PM »

Mike saw his chance to make millions in the trial off a weakened BW and went for it. Roll Eyes

I am about as big of a Brian fan as you could ever meet, and even I know that not to be true...  Mike was willing to settle for co-credits on all future BB releases and a token amount ($750,000).  Brian's legal team advised Brian that they were certain that he would win, and advised him not to settle.   That advice cost Brian $4,250,000.

Lee

What was the possible logic behind the idea that "Brian could win"? Obviously it's easy in hindsight to say that Brian's lawyers were just taking Brian for a ride and trying to milk him for all he was worth... but what was their stated logical justification for what Brian's lawyers were attempting at the time?  Even the lawyers' bad logic must have had some sort of "spin" to make their pathetic attempt seem plausible.

Were Brian's lawyers saying that the court would find there was no evidence that Mike actually co-wrote any of the songs that he was seeking credit for, and that Mike in fact didn't deserve any credit whatsoever beyond the credited songs he actually already had proper credit for? I'm assuming this is how they "spun" their intended outcome to Brian, if Brian was even paying attention to what they were saying at the time (which IMO is doubtful - lawyers are very easy to tune out, especially for Brian who gives no f*ck about legalities).
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 01:33:59 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #649 on: January 13, 2016, 02:12:56 PM »

    Debbie KL,   you my dear are the "clearest" person on this Smilely Smile "COURT OF APPEALS DEBATE TEAM" for you have expressed a concern and interest in what Stephen Love has been doing? The Gentleman responsible for SAVING Brian's LIFE! Well, I can tell you what he has been doing wiith himself... Stephen has been "SURFING" in Hanalei Bay Kauai for the last 20 years... where he also resides! YES... "SURFING"... he moved there, and "SURFS" to maintain his SANITY!! I can also tell you Stephen is well respected by the locals and is considered "FAMILY" (kamaina as they say). I have visited him a number of times, as others have, and we can all attest to the sentiment that he is considered a Local Treasure! Stephen lives with a beautiful girl named Cathy Moe, who also graduated "Magna Cum Laude from U.C.L.A"., and after having worked for Disney for 10 yrs she has written a Horoscope column for a Japanese Magazine for the last 17 yrs! I would like to assure you Debbie that Stephen not only lives a very serene and satisfying life "SURFING" in Kauai, the Garden Island, with his many friends enjoying the Aloha Spirit of Paradise but most importantly is "HAPPY" Smiley HAPPY Smiley HAPPY Smiley Island Life and... SURFING will do that for you! Debbie... Stephen called me and asked me to THANK YOU for your kind words and send you a warm Aloha!

Rocky, for your, and for the readers edification, (as I lived in Hawaii for 13 years, as well as being my current winter local), let me say that  "Kama'aina" means long term resident or "local". The word you sought is "'Ohana" which means family or intimately related group, like a canoe club.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 83 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.444 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!