Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?

[filledeplage]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.   

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion. 

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.     

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better. 

   

[Emily]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.   

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion. 

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.     

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better. 

   

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

[rockrush3]

       For you Legal Minded Smile Associates who are weighing in on song writing credits and retrying cases with your expert LEGALESE...(If some one can tell me how to "post" a Court Order I will do so). IN the interim I am going to quote directly from Judge Nancy Brown's Exoneration/Expungement Order dated February 22, 1996 which reads in part as follows: Wherefore petitioner hereby requests that defendant be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty, or that the verdict or finding of guilt be set aside and that a plea of not guilty be entered and that the court dismiss this action pursuant to the above Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 1996 at Los Angeles, California. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plea, verdict, or finding of guilt in the above-entitled action be set aside and vacated and a plea of not guilty be entered; and that the information be, and is hereby dismissed. Dated February 22, 1996. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. (signed BY) Nancy Brown. (also from the transcript of the hearing page 3) The fact that he had no prior record before this case and no subsequent to this case I am going to make a finding that the report from the records on file in this case and from the petition and the exhibits that have been filed that the defendant is eligible for the relief requested. SO I AM GOING TP GRANT THE MOTION TO EXPUNGE. Mr. Vitek: Thank You, Your Honor. I will sign and date this petition. And what will happen -- basically happens, Mr. Love is this: Your plea of guilty, which was entered about ten years ago, is set aside, A NOT GUILTY PLEA IS ENTERED, THE CASE IS DISMISSED, AND YOUR RECORD IS EXPUNGED. Do you understand all of that? THE DEFENDANT: THANK YOU, JUDGE BROWN. THAT'S MUSIC TO MY EARS.

[filledeplage]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.    

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion.  

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.      

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better.  

    

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

Emily - that may not be true and would be fact-dependent.  I have not seen the complaint.  Often people appear (or their attorney) and motion the court to hear facts that make them a party in the case where it is decided by the court that they have a "stake in the outcome." Most reasonable motions are heard and decided upon.  

Generally, I refrain from opining until I have some facts available.  Almost no one likes to see unfortunate things happen to people.  Absent knowing all the facts and circumstances, that doesn't work for me.  

The case is about 20 years old now.  It is not news.    

[Emily]

Hi Rocky. Are you saying you have a file (a pdf or Microsoft word or similar file) you'd like to upload or link to?
If so, will the file show the context of the above post - like the case id or something?

[Emily]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.    

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion.  

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.      

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better.  

    

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

Emily - that may not be true and would be fact-dependent.  I have not seen the complaint.  Often people appear (or their attorney) and motion the court to hear facts that make them a party in the case and they have a stake in the outcome.  Most reasonable motions are heard and decided upon.  

Generally I refrain from opining until I have some facts available.  Almost no one likes to see unfortunate things happen to people.  Absent knowing all the facts and circumstances, that doesn't work for me.  

The case is about 20 years old now.  It is not news.    

True, it's not news; therefore some facts are available. The instances of third parties joining cases that you cite, were they plaintiffs or defendants?
Scratch that. I don't care. I feel bad for Asher. done.

[filledeplage]

     For you Legal Minded Smile Associates who are weighing in on song writing credits and retrying cases with your expert LEGALESE...(If some one can tell me how to "post" a Court Order I will do so). IN the interim I am going to quote directly from Judge Nancy Brown's Exoneration/Expungement Order dated February 22, 1996 which reads in part as follows: Wherefore petitioner hereby requests that defendant be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty, or that the verdict or finding of guilt be set aside and that a plea of not guilty be entered and that the court dismiss this action pursuant to the above Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 1996 at Los Angeles, California. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plea, verdict, or finding of guilt in the above-entitled action be set aside and vacated and a plea of not guilty be entered; and that the information be, and is hereby dismissed. Dated February 22, 1996. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. (signed BY) Nancy Brown. (also from the transcript of the hearing page 3) The fact that he had no prior record before this case and no subsequent to this case I am going to make a finding that the report from the records on file in this case and from the petition and the exhibits that have been filed that the defendant is eligible for the relief requested. SO I AM GOING TP GRANT THE MOTION TO EXPUNGE. Mr. Vitek: Thank You, Your Honor. I will sign and date this petition. And what will happen -- basically happens, Mr. Love is this: Your plea of guilty, which was entered about ten years ago, is set aside, A NOT GUILTY PLEA IS ENTERED, THE CASE IS DISMISSED, AND YOUR RECORD IS EXPUNGED. Do you understand all of that? THE DEFENDANT: THANK YOU, JUDGE BROWN. THAT'S MUSIC TO MY EARS.

rockrush3 - I won't be retrying the case.  It was fully adjudicated. 

The link from surfer moon is a pretty good read from someone who was in the courtroom for the actual trial.  It is in about six parts. 

[Pretty Funky]

Case number here Emily.

I can share with all of you that Stephen Love has been fully EXONERATED of the so-called embezzlement charge PURSUANT to SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE NANCY BROWN'S ORDER (Los Angeles Municipal Court Case No. A961401) dated February 22, 1996.

[Emily]

Case number here Emily.

I can share with all of you that Stephen Love has been fully EXONERATED of the so-called embezzlement charge PURSUANT to SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE NANCY BROWN'S ORDER (Los Angeles Municipal Court Case No. A961401) dated February 22, 1996.

That's a case number for the exoneration order in 1996. I was wondering about a reference to the case the exoneration was for.
Thanks though.

[adamghost]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.    

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion.  

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.      

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better.  

    

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

Emily - that may not be true and would be fact-dependent.  I have not seen the complaint.  Often people appear (or their attorney) and motion the court to hear facts that make them a party in the case where it is decided by the court that they have a "stake in the outcome." Most reasonable motions are heard and decided upon.  

Generally, I refrain from opining until I have some facts available.  Almost no one likes to see unfortunate things happen to people.  Absent knowing all the facts and circumstances, that doesn't work for me.  

The case is about 20 years old now.  It is not news.    

Just stating my opinion, do not take this as a personal attack - but frankly speaking, FdP, I think the way you choose to parse this is kind of silly.  The difference possibly arises from being a working musician and sometime songwriter - not to mention also having worked as a legal secretary for 9 years - and being very clearly able to visualize what a (likely thankless) pain in the neck Asher would have faced to try to be proactive in this situation, and yes, it very much would be an "insinuation" in terms of the reality of the case - two big dogs fighting it out, and you're a collateral little dog.  All I need to "know" is the realities someone like Asher would face, broadly speaking, in this kind of situation.  And I do.  I don't think it's that hard to visualize if you're not a musician or songwriter, or haven't worked in a law office, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.  It's not, as you suggest, a situation that requires fuller understanding of the facts to reach a conclusion.  The facts vis a vis Asher's likely situation are fairly easy to intuit.

[filledeplage]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.    

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion.  

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.      

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better.  

    

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

Emily - that may not be true and would be fact-dependent.  I have not seen the complaint.  Often people appear (or their attorney) and motion the court to hear facts that make them a party in the case where it is decided by the court that they have a "stake in the outcome." Most reasonable motions are heard and decided upon.  

Generally, I refrain from opining until I have some facts available.  Almost no one likes to see unfortunate things happen to people.  Absent knowing all the facts and circumstances, that doesn't work for me.  

The case is about 20 years old now.  It is not news.    

Just stating my opinion, do not take this as a personal attack - but frankly speaking, FdP, I think the way you choose to parse this is kind of silly.  The difference possibly arises from being a working musician and sometime songwriter - not to mention also having worked as a legal secretary for 9 years - and being very clearly able to visualize what a (likely thankless) pain in the neck Asher would have faced to try to be proactive in this situation, and yes, it very much would be an "insinuation" in terms of the reality of the case - two big dogs fighting it out, and you're a collateral little dog.  All I need to "know" is the realities someone like Asher would face, broadly speaking, in this kind of situation.  And I do.  I don't think it's that hard to visualize if you're not a musician or songwriter, or haven't worked in a law office, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.  It's not, as you suggest, a situation that requires fuller understanding of the facts to reach a conclusion.  The facts vis a vis Asher's likely situation are fairly easy to intuit.

adamghost - In the States, and in Canada, as in the link below, are the the concepts of intervention. In the US it is covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and broadly even covers the concept of amicus briefs - or friend of the court briefs when a non party wants to be heard on a controversy or case.  It falls under Rule 24.  I am not insulting Asher in any way, nor am I "parsing" but breaking down the concept. But it does require a "bank of facts" to make that decision as to whether to intervene in a case.  

There are procedures to allow nonparties to be heard and for those who are interested in learning more about this, there is plenty online to read and learn about.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(law) the broad analysis of US and Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/intervention_(law)  

[That link needs to be followed as I was working on an iPad which has a different path but ends up in the same place.]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/intervention_(law) -  for the iPad

Hope it copies and it is not *legal advice* - for educational purposes.

And for Rocky, upon looking up the LA Municipal Courts, there are numbers, names, and clicking on the file, there is nothing.  It means that "something happened," at some point but there is nothing in the file probably consistent with expungement or sealing of records.  But no written decision or order as quoted.  Just the name and the number assigned to the matter.  

[SteveMC]

Rocky,
I feel like we're all spinning our wheels in this thread.
If the book is complete, please post the Table of Contents.
Thanks in advance.

[Emily]

Rocky,
I feel like we're all spinning our wheels in this thread.
If the book is complete, please post the Table of Contents.
Thanks in advance.

Great suggestion!

[adamghost]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.    

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion.  

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.      

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better.  

    

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

Emily - that may not be true and would be fact-dependent.  I have not seen the complaint.  Often people appear (or their attorney) and motion the court to hear facts that make them a party in the case where it is decided by the court that they have a "stake in the outcome." Most reasonable motions are heard and decided upon.  

Generally, I refrain from opining until I have some facts available.  Almost no one likes to see unfortunate things happen to people.  Absent knowing all the facts and circumstances, that doesn't work for me.  

The case is about 20 years old now.  It is not news.    

Just stating my opinion, do not take this as a personal attack - but frankly speaking, FdP, I think the way you choose to parse this is kind of silly.  The difference possibly arises from being a working musician and sometime songwriter - not to mention also having worked as a legal secretary for 9 years - and being very clearly able to visualize what a (likely thankless) pain in the neck Asher would have faced to try to be proactive in this situation, and yes, it very much would be an "insinuation" in terms of the reality of the case - two big dogs fighting it out, and you're a collateral little dog.  All I need to "know" is the realities someone like Asher would face, broadly speaking, in this kind of situation.  And I do.  I don't think it's that hard to visualize if you're not a musician or songwriter, or haven't worked in a law office, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.  It's not, as you suggest, a situation that requires fuller understanding of the facts to reach a conclusion.  The facts vis a vis Asher's likely situation are fairly easy to intuit.

adamghost - In the States, and in Canada, as in the link below, are the the concepts of intervention. In the US it is covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and broadly even covers the concept of amicus briefs - or friend of the court briefs when a non party wants to be heard on a controversy or case.  It falls under Rule 24.  I am not insulting Asher in any way, nor am I "parsing" but breaking down the concept. But it does require a "bank of facts" to make that decision as to whether to intervene in a case.  

There are procedures to allow nonparties to be heard and for those who are interested in learning more about this, there is plenty online to read and learn about.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(law) the broad analysis of US and Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/intervention_(law)  

[That link needs to be followed as I was working on an iPad which has a different path but ends up in the same place.]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/intervention_(law) -  for the iPad

Hope it copies and it is not *legal advice* - for educational purposes.

And for Rocky, upon looking up the LA Municipal Courts, there are numbers, names, and clicking on the file, there is nothing.  It means that "something happened," at some point but there is nothing in the file probably consistent with expungement or sealing of records.  But no written decision or order as quoted.  Just the name and the number assigned to the matter.  

Yup, I do and did understand that there are specific legal remedies, and that you are well-versed in what they are, and we appreciate your sharing your knowledge.  It doesn't change the fundamentals of the situation that would face anybody in such a position, or the ease with which most of us can apprend them, at all.  In this scenario, Asher had two options: take legal action, or do nothing.  They both sucked for him.  So I don't see why we need further facts relating to the legal specifics to sympathize with his position.  Again, The End.

[filledeplage]

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.

adamghost - sometimes on this board, a poster will toss out a statement...such as "poor-so-and-so, they had some of they royalties cut."  Or, had them re-apportioned.  Because I haven't read this entire file, it is hard to form an opinion.  I don't even know this man, but I appreciate his work.    

And, then the poster blames someone. This leaves the reader wondering why there are not more facts available.  The whole scenario is so convoluted. I guess it would be forming an uninformed opinion.  

They had to go back to the early days when Murry did whatever he did, and unpack all the facts.  And, it seems there were a number of songs in the catalog.  But, entertainment issues are generally a small sphere.  And seems a small and specialized world, so if there were royalties in question, you have to find out how it affects you directly.  Sometimes you have to spend money to defend your rights.

It isn't a matter of insinuating yourself into the process.  If you had a role in the creation of the music, and you are in the industry then you keep tabs on that stuff because you rely on that revenue stream.  And you file with the court to be heard as to your royalty rights and have someone in court saying "objection" to the judge when that song is raised. Or settle a claim "as to you" and let the trial proceed, but your rights remain status quo.  But we know none of this. We only know the result after the trial.      

So, opining on some issue without all the facts, for me is nonsense.  And, people generally don't understand the process well enough to comment except in a hypothetical.

Some day I would like read the line of cases, unless they have been sealed by agreement of the parties. Then I will understand the whole scenario better.  

    

He would have to have been brought in by Brian's team or file a separate case after the fact.
You, and I and about everyone here opines frequently without all the facts.
Ditto what adamghost said.

Emily - that may not be true and would be fact-dependent.  I have not seen the complaint.  Often people appear (or their attorney) and motion the court to hear facts that make them a party in the case where it is decided by the court that they have a "stake in the outcome." Most reasonable motions are heard and decided upon.  

Generally, I refrain from opining until I have some facts available.  Almost no one likes to see unfortunate things happen to people.  Absent knowing all the facts and circumstances, that doesn't work for me.  

The case is about 20 years old now.  It is not news.    

Just stating my opinion, do not take this as a personal attack - but frankly speaking, FdP, I think the way you choose to parse this is kind of silly.  The difference possibly arises from being a working musician and sometime songwriter - not to mention also having worked as a legal secretary for 9 years - and being very clearly able to visualize what a (likely thankless) pain in the neck Asher would have faced to try to be proactive in this situation, and yes, it very much would be an "insinuation" in terms of the reality of the case - two big dogs fighting it out, and you're a collateral little dog.  All I need to "know" is the realities someone like Asher would face, broadly speaking, in this kind of situation.  And I do.  I don't think it's that hard to visualize if you're not a musician or songwriter, or haven't worked in a law office, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.  It's not, as you suggest, a situation that requires fuller understanding of the facts to reach a conclusion.  The facts vis a vis Asher's likely situation are fairly easy to intuit.

adamghost - In the States, and in Canada, as in the link below, are the the concepts of intervention. In the US it is covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and broadly even covers the concept of amicus briefs - or friend of the court briefs when a non party wants to be heard on a controversy or case.  It falls under Rule 24.  I am not insulting Asher in any way, nor am I "parsing" but breaking down the concept. But it does require a "bank of facts" to make that decision as to whether to intervene in a case.  

There are procedures to allow nonparties to be heard and for those who are interested in learning more about this, there is plenty online to read and learn about.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(law) the broad analysis of US and Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/intervention_(law)  

[That link needs to be followed as I was working on an iPad which has a different path but ends up in the same place.]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/intervention_(law) -  for the iPad

Hope it copies and it is not *legal advice* - for educational purposes.

And for Rocky, upon looking up the LA Municipal Courts, there are numbers, names, and clicking on the file, there is nothing.  It means that "something happened," at some point but there is nothing in the file probably consistent with expungement or sealing of records.  But no written decision or order as quoted.  Just the name and the number assigned to the matter.  

Yup, I do and did understand that there are specific legal remedies, and that you are well-versed in what they are, and we appreciate your sharing your knowledge.  It doesn't change the fundamentals of the situation that would face anybody in such a position, or the ease with which most of us can apprend them, at all.  In this scenario, Asher had two options: take legal action, or do nothing.  They both sucked for him.  So I don't see why we need further facts relating to the legal specifics to sympathize with his position.  Again, The End.

Adam ghost - Thanks for the reply.  Here is the disconnect for me.  It was never apparent by anything I read, that Asher knew he had any opportunity to become part of the suit. 

Or, whether he was called as a witness, or actually was presented with intervening in the action.  Any account of this has always been told as a "bad result" for him leaving out the whole scenario. Not having transcripts to read, left an info vacuum for me. 

Thanks again. 

[rockrush3]

      To Smile Readers, I have posted this CASE NUMBER before... and am HAPPY to post it again. This CASE NUMBER is located in the top right hand corner of a copy of the actual "ORIGINAL FILED SUPERIOR COURT ORDER" CASE NUMBER    A-961401. Which I am dying to post for all to see!  Emily what I have is a "COPY" of the actual "COURT ORDER" (or is that improper legalese... to say or write "COPY" of "ACTUAL" COURT ORDER) And thank you, Emily, for inquiring if I have a pdf or Microsoft WORD or similar FILE  I'd like to UPLOAD or LINK. So, once again, if anyone can instruct me how to post the "COURT ORDER" in question...(oop's I better be careful about asking for INSTRUCTIONS from the LEGAL DEPARTMENT of Smile... I'll get three pages of INSTRUCTIONS...28...29...30) Just to be clear, for the ever skeptical FACT FINDERS, I only have a "COPY", (just a simple ordinary) "COPY" of the "COURT ORDER" that was handed to Stephen, by a clerk, as he was leaving the Superior Court House. His own personal "COPY" of his "EXONERATION/ESPUNGEMENT" ORDER from Superior Court Judge Nancy Brown! EXONERATION and ESPUNGEMENT being two of Stephens favorite words... or as he stated in court that's "MUSIC TO MY EARS" !!!

[Emily]

Hi Rocky, if your copy is on paper, first you'll need to scan it to a computer file.
I've never uploaded a file to this site and am not at my computer just now. But if no one answers before I get to it, I'll figure it out and let you know.

[rockrush3]

   Steve MC,   Your right... I too feel a lot of posters are spinning their wheels here. YES the book is complete... has been since 10-20-15. And I just checked with a producer that is developing the Motion Picture Rights about posting the Table of Contents and he said... SURE! He  is a member of the Voting Academy. For clarification purposes, to become a member of the Voting Academy you have to have been an Actor, Director, Writer or Producer etc... of TWO Movies that have been Nominated for an Academy Award. He has Produced "Nine" Films in his illustrious career. To continue, as I stated in the above request, to list the Table of Contents of my book entitled "WIPEOUT" (Caught in the Undertow of America's Greatest Band)... by Rushton "Rocky" Pamplin... A bodyguard-handler's scorching Memoir! WIPEOUT - The Chapters... 1. Had To Phone Ya  2. Stephen Love, MBA  3. Dennis' Dinner Party  4. Brian's Ice Bath  5. Sound Check  6. The Showdown  7. Brian's Back  8. Two Legends and a Jerk  9. Laughs and Hoops  10. A Day in the Life  11. A Broken Spirit  12. Wha--Ooh  13. The Troubadour  14. Must Be the Squab  15. Vacation  16. Brian's Christmas Gift  17. Barefootin'  18. New Years at Nick's  19. Mike Betrays Stephen  20. Brian's Winning  21. Bad Manners  22. No Thanks  23. The Prince  24. Dennis Drowns  25. Europe  26. Chez Jay's   27. Massaging the Witness  28. Mike Sues Brian  29. Stephen's Touchdown  30. Thanks  31. I Wonder  32. Epilogue  33. Appendix.

[Theydon Bois]

It's hard not to look forward to chapter eight.

[mikeddonn]

Looks good! Rocky can you give us a taster of the Chez Jay Chapter. I managed to visit there once from the UK.  It was great to see one of Dennis' old hang-out spots.

[Pretty Funky]

 Steve MC,   Your right... I too feel a lot of posters are spinning their wheels here. YES the book is complete... has been since 10-20-15. And I just checked with my new Manager Ron Hamady about posting the Table of Contents and he said... SURE! Ron is a member of the Voting Academy. For clarification purposes, to become a member of the Voting Academy you have to have been an Actor, Director, Writer or Producer etc... of TWO Movies that have been Nominated for an Academy Award. Ron has Produced "Nine" Films in his Illustrious Career so far! The TWO Features that he Produced that were nominated for Academy Awards and earned him the position of a Member of the Voting Academy are "GOD CREATED WOMAN" and "OUT COLD". To continue, as I stated in the above request, to list the Table of Contents of my book entitled "WIPEOUT" (Caught in the Undertow of America's Greatest Band)... by Rushton "Rocky" Pamplin... A bodyguard-handler's scorching Memoir! WIPEOUT - The Chapters... 1. Had To Phone Ya  2. Stephen Love, MBA  3. Dennis' Dinner Party  4. Brian's Ice Bath  5. Sound Check  6. The Showdown  7. Brian's Back  8. Two Legends and a Jerk  9. Laughs and Hoops  10. A Day in the Life  11. A Broken Spirit  12. Wha--Ooh  13. The Troubadour  14. Must Be the Squab  15. Vacation  16. Brian's Christmas Gift  17. New Years at Nick's  19. Mike Betrays Stephen  20. Brian's Winning  21. Bad Manners  22. No Thanks  23. The Prince  24. Dennis Drowns  25. Europe  26. Chez Jay's   27. Massaging the Witness  28. Mike Sues Brian  29. Stephen's Touchdown  30. Thanks  31. I Wonder  32. Epilogue  33. Appendix.

If its ok with you Rocky, I have set it out for a easier read. BTW Chapter 18 is missing?


"WIPEOUT" (Caught in the Undertow of America's Greatest Band)... by Rushton "Rocky" Pamplin... A bodyguard-handler's scorching Memoir! WIPEOUT

The Chapters...

1. Had To Phone Ya  
2. Stephen Love, MBA  
3. Dennis' Dinner Party  
4. Brian's Ice Bath  
5. Sound Check  
6. The Showdown  
7. Brian's Back
8. Two Legends and a Jerk  
9. Laughs and Hoops  
10. A Day in the Life  
11. A Broken Spirit
12. Wha--Ooh  
13. The Troubadour
14. Must Be the Squab  
15. Vacation  
16. Brian's Christmas Gift  
17. New Years at Nick's  
19. Mike Betrays Stephen  
20. Brian's Winning  
21. Bad Manners  
22. No Thanks  
23. The Prince  
24. Dennis Drowns  
25. Europe  
26. Chez Jay's  
27. Massaging the Witness  
28. Mike Sues Brian  
29. Stephen's Touchdown  
30. Thanks  
31. I Wonder  
32. Epilogue  
33. Appendix.

[adamghost]

Chapter 18 is the legendary lost chapter.  Rocky Pamplin's SMiLE if you will...

[?]

I'd like to UPLOAD or LINK... So, once again, if anyone can instruct me how to post the "COURT ORDER" in question...

Hey Rocky, you can upload it to a file host and post the download link in this thread.  Sendspace is quick and easy (you don't have to sign up to upload): https://www.sendspace.com

And you should try again to convince Stephen Love to post here!  I bet he has a lot of interesting stuff to say.

[c-man]

Chapter 18 is the legendary lost chapter.  Rocky Pamplin's SMiLE if you will...

Good one, Adam!   

[Emily]

Hi Rocky,
Who is the Prince and can you give us any hints about chapter 19? You've succeeded in making me curious about Stephen Love.
Thanks for listing the contents.