Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[CenturyDeprived]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

Firstly, you didn't answer my question, though I figure you'll just deflect by saying neither of us has any right for the question to even enter our minds. Secondly, why does that type of potential diagnosis sarcastically have to be equated to "horse thievery"? If he is indeed suffering from it on some level, that would be a real sad and unfortunate thing, but it doesn't mean he is the devil and/or incapable of any goodness. I seek better understanding and empathy (as I think you would too), not sure how simply dismissing a theory that may not be far off is beneficial. I mainly feel sorry for the guy because he can't be happy and can't figure out that he is inadvertently responsible for so much of his own pain, as well as others'. Thirdly, too many yes men is why getting better ain't gonna happen.

[Empire Of Love]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

Firstly, you didn't answer my question, though I figure you'll just deflect by saying neither of us has any right for the question to even enter our minds. Secondly, why does that type of potential diagnosis sarcastically have to be equated to "horse thievery"? If he is indeed suffering from it on some level, that would be a real sad and unfortunate thing, but it doesn't mean he is the devil and/or incapable of any goodness. I seek better understanding and empathy (as I think you would too), not sure how simply dismissing a theory that may not be far off is such a great thing. I mainly feel sorry for the guy because he can't be happy. Thirdly, too many yes men is why getting better ain't gonna happen.

FP will be disappointed if you leave out the yes women. 

[HeyJude]

In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.
          

According to the July 8, 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Love had already been "strongly admonished" by the court regarding this issue:

Over the course of the proceedings, Love filed three complaints. In his first amended complaint, he alleged that he was domiciled in Nevada. In his second amended complaint, he removed that line, and claimed to be “an individual with a residence in California.” The district court “strongly admonishe[d]” Love for alleging to have a residence in California and, based on this “legal nullity,” claiming in papers that “Love is a California resident.” (emphasis in original).

When an issue is a sort of 50/50, very debatable issue that the court just didn't happen to rule on in favor of the plaintiff, courts typically don't "admonish" plaintiffs in relation to said issue.

Hey Jude - I was very clear in exactly the text I used.  I did not wander into another court phase.  It had page numbers which I provided.  

The test is generally "where you intend to return."  

It is as basic as the 9th circuit decision spelled it out. The first amended complaint in the district court listed a Nevada residence for the plaintiff, the second amended complaint had changed that to a California residence (ostensibly so a legality specific to California's unfair business practices which does not apply in Nevada could be referenced in the case), the court "strongly admonished" the plaintiff Love for those actions.

GF - if I had to guess, that probably would have been on the lawyer.  

Mike might "draft lyrics," but I highly doubt he "drafted the complaint."  And, he may have thought that owning property would or even living part-time in  CA (as people do with summer residences, even longer time-wise than the main residence) may have supported it.   We only know what is fed to us in the decision with the minutiae in the middle. Just sayin'.  

Of course actual clients don’t actually draft these complaints. But I would assume Mike stays in the loop on any pending legal activity he is paying lawyers for.

Certainly, if his lawyers were taking a very specific tact and strategy (e.g. changing the state of residence for the purposes of legitimizing some element of their complaint), Mike would have been aware of and okayed this decision. This wasn’t a little tiny nugget buried in the minutiae of the case. It was basically a hail mary attempt to keep a part of the case valid.  

Subsequently, the court strongly admonished Mike (as the plaintiff) for doing this. It doesn’t mean anything he did was illegal, or that he was going to be thrown in jail for it. But it also means the court found the tactic objectionable enough to “admonish” him. Basically, as I read it, the court is calling BS on their tactic.

People are characterizing Mike in a negative context for this particular lawsuit, *that’s* where the topic of this lawsuit is coming into play in this thread, and I think the court *admonishing* Mike for elements of his case in addition to the court using terms like “bloated”, “bordered on frivolous”, and “vastly overpled” would tend to be pretty strong support for such a characterization.

I think I get where you’re coming from. When it comes to the guys in this band, and specifically Mike more so than the others, you want to always give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to legal wrangling. Anything and everything has a hypothetical/theoretical explanation that doesn’t involve someone just being an a-hole. I simply disagree; sometimes. It’s a very dicey topic to get into, but when we’re talking about legal cases and rulings and the *presiding courts* start characterizing Mike negatively via the most objective fashion possible, I think that stretches beyond the benefit of the doubt when the topic at hand is essentially simply “I think Mike filing that particular lawsuit was lamentable and objectionable.”

[SMiLE Brian]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

Firstly, you didn't answer my question, though I figure you'll just deflect by saying neither of us has any right for the question to even enter our minds. Secondly, why does that type of potential diagnosis sarcastically have to be equated to "horse thievery"? If he is indeed suffering from it on some level, that would be a real sad and unfortunate thing, but it doesn't mean he is the devil and/or incapable of any goodness. I seek better understanding and empathy (as I think you would too), not sure how simply dismissing a theory that may not be far off is such a great thing. I mainly feel sorry for the guy because he can't be happy. Thirdly, too many yes men is why getting better ain't gonna happen.

FP will be disappointed if you leave out the yes women. 

Yes people!

[urbanite]

I don't get where Mike Love is coming from.  He is very aware of his public reputation and is uncomfortable with it, and feels like he has not been given a fair shake.  At the same time, he is unwilling to change, seems very rigid. 

The title of Mike Love Not War is a ridiculous name for a new album.  He should reconsider.

Has he ever blamed his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech on a failure to meditate before?   

[drbeachboy]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

Firstly, you didn't answer my question, though I figure you'll just deflect by saying neither of us has any right for the question to even enter our minds. Secondly, why does that type of potential diagnosis sarcastically have to be equated to "horse thievery"? If he is indeed suffering from it on some level, that would be a real sad and unfortunate thing, but it doesn't mean he is the devil and/or incapable of any goodness. I seek better understanding and empathy (as I think you would too), not sure how simply dismissing a theory that may not be far off is beneficial. I mainly feel sorry for the guy because he can't be happy and can't figure out that he is inadvertently responsible for so much of his own pain, as well as others'. Thirdly, too many yes men is why getting better ain't gonna happen.

Look, I just got on Smile Brian for diagnosing Mike, so why on earth would I answer your question? I have empathy and understanding for Mike too. As a matter of fact, I have it for all the guys in the band. It doesn't mean I go around diagnosing and assuming certain things on a public board. I am not a gossip monger. It is not what I come here for. I come here to read and discuss the band and the music. I know Mike did this interview and is subject to some of this scrutiny, but playing doctor isn't part of it. This stuff is the part of human nature that I absolutely abhor.

[guitarfool2002]

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

A quick survey of the BB catalog from this time period indicates Brian had a hand in either writing or recording the following:

Heroes and Villains
Wind Chimes
Surf’s Up
Vege-tables
Tones
I Love To Say Dada
Good News
Little Pad
Good Time Mama
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
With Me Tonight
She’s Goin’ Bald
Whistle In
Gettin Hungry
Wild Honey
Aren’t You Glad
Time To Get Alone
The Letter
Game of Love
Cool Cool Water
Here Comes The Night
A Thing Or Two
Darlin
Can’t Wait Too Long
Lonely Days
Let The Wind Blow
Mama Says
I’d Love Just Once To See You
Country Air
When A Man Needs  A Woman
You’re As Cool As Can Be
Be Here in the morning
Friends
Our Happy Home
Passing By
Busy Doin’ Nothin
Wake The World
Meant For You
Anna Lee The Healer
Trancendental Meditation
Diamond Head
Walk On By
Old Folks At Home/Old Man River
Do It Again
We’re Together Again
I Went To Sleep
Sail Plane Song
Walkin
I’ll Keep On Loving You
As Tears Go By
Cotton Fields
When Girls Get Together
All I Wanna Do
Deidre
Break Away
Games Two Can Play
Our Sweet Love
Til I Die
Soulful Old Man Sunshine
At My Window
This Whole World
Add Some Music To Your Day
Where Is She
Take A Load Off Your Feet
I Just Got My Pay
Good Time
H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
My Solution
A Day In The Life Of A Tree
You Need A Mess Of Help
He Come Down
Marcella
Funky Pretty
Mount Vernon & Fairway
Sail On Sailer
Falling In Love
Had To Phone Ya
Shortenin Bread
Patty cake
Ding Dang
California Feelin
Child Of Winter
Good Timin
It’s OK
Come Go With Me
Winter Symphony
Running Bear
He’s So Fine
Let’s Dance
Secret Love
Peggy Sue
Blueberry Hill
Palisades Park
Honkin Down The Highway
Chapel Of Love
Talk To Me
On Broadway
In The Still Of The Night
Mony Mony
Rock and Roll Music
Just Once In My Life
A Casual Look
TM Song
Everyone’s In Love With You
That Same Song
Michael Row The Boat Ashore
Shake Rattle And Roll
Airplane
I’ll Be He’s Nice
Love Is A Woman
Mona
Still I Dream Of It
It’s Over Now
Let Us Go on This Way
Johnny Carson
The Night Was So Young
I Wanna Pick You Up
Hey Little Tomboy
Solar System
Roller Skating Child
We Gotta Groove
My Diane
Life Is For The Living
Deep Purple
Lines
Wontcha Come Out Tonight
She’s Got Rhythm
Sweet Sunday Kind Of Love
Belles Of Paris
Pitter Patter
Matchpoint Of Our Love
Our Team
Santa Ana Wins
Goin On
Goin To The Beach
Crack At Your Love
California Calling
I’m So Lonely
It’s Just A Matter Of Time
Male Ego
Soul Searchin

Brian was too ill to do anything from 1967-2002 beside collect royalties on the back of Mike Love's hard work?  That does seem even remotely close to a true statement.  I don't know about all of you but some of my absolute favorite Beach Boys songs can be found in this list.  This makes me ask why Mike would misrepresent the facts in regards to Brian's contributions during this time period, to this great of a degree, in a lawsuit?  Something isn't right here.

EoL

Looking at that list of songs, it's even more difficult to understand how or why such a blatantly misleading or false claim would be made in a legal filing. This was 2005, a decade after the case about songwriting credits had been decided, and after that decision made it possible for all future official credit listings and releases of the songs decided in the case to reflect what was decided by the courts should go to Mike as a credited co-writer.

In other words, the credits being sought were given and changed where necessary regarding those songs from the case.

With that in mind, what is hard to not only justify but also try to come up with a basic rationale to explain is why there would be language in a lawsuit filed a decade later that offers this statement : "Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties", when there are some very prominent and familiar songs on that list of BB's songs that are credited to Mike and Brian. Hits and fan favorites, too.

I'm still trying to find any rationalization for a legal document filed in 2005 that seems to blatantly ignore the fact that not only was Brian making music for the Beach Boys, but that he was co-writing a decent amount of that music with Mike, a fact that Mike knows firsthand as Brian's co-writer.

The song credits case in the 90's settled the issue and gave Mike the credit for the songs he co-wrote. In light of that, and the colossal "wrong" done to Mike as the lack of proper credits has been described for years up to the present in 2016, why would the same person who suffered such a wrong then had it righted and fixed attempt to do a similar thing in lessening Brian's involvement with the Beach Boys' 1967-2002 music as listed above? And especially through those songs that Brian not only was involved in recording with Mike but also co-wrote with Mike and was always credited as such?

[Cam Mott]

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

[Emily]

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

[HeyJude]

It's highly unlikely Mike wrote any of the filings. Why would he? That's what he (and everyone else) pays lawyers for. But I also don't doubt for a second that he signed off on all of it and read all of it.

If there was anything in that paperwork that the lawyers would especially need input from their client on, it would be the "background" section.

I'm curious why "Mike didn't write the filing" is now being used, apparently, as a means to defend him. Nobody is complaining about single typos or slightly inflammatory, subjective rhetoric in the suit. But the comment about Brian being "essentially too ill" to do anything put collect royalties between 1967 and 2002 is demonstrably false, and I don't find it very plausible that Mike Love didn't read that very specific "background" section of his own lawsuit filing.

The "background" section uses numerous sweeping generalizations which smell to me like an angry client asking lawyers to cut down and minimize Brian (and Al for some reason) as much as possible. The swipes at someone who was not a party to the lawsuits but who was involved in separate litigation (Al Jardine) drip even more with invective.

[Paul J B]

Curious...when was the first time Mike initiated a lawsuit? Was it during those Landy years in the late 80's or were there times a lot earlier?

[Emily]

You know, I can understand some ambivalence about Mike Love. I can also understand defending him as an (at this point) underdog with an understandable wound, but trying to make a neutral out of the 2005 lawsuit isn't going to work.

[HeyJude]

Also, in looking at the original 2005 lawsuit filing, I found one little bit that I've been searching out for a long time. During numerous discussions in the past several years about the touring name license, some have (I believe) contended that Brian never has and never would threaten to take Mike's license away. I always countered that, according to Mike's lawsuit filing, in at least one case Brian allegedly *did* threaten just that. So I finally found the section of the lawsuit that makes this contention, with my bolded/yellow emphasis:

116. Defendants intentionally engaged in the aforesaid acts or conduct relating to the promotion of the Smile CD and the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD, which prevented plaintiff from performing his contract with BRI to use The Beach Boys trademark or that caused performance under the contract to be more expensive or burdensome. In particular, by misappropriating the Trademark and the name and images of the band, and by “giving-away” Beach Boys classic hits, defendants have caused performance under the contract (License) to become more expensive and burdensome. In his capacity as one of the four Directors of BRI, the defendant, Brian Wilson, in concert with the other defendants, has further interfered with the performance of plaintiff’s contract with BRI by the following acts: (a.) organizing and orchestrating the described scheme; (b) failing to disclose the scheme to BRI and to plaintiff; (c) threatening to vote to revoke the license in the event plaintiff either individually or in his capacity as a Director of BRI attempted to obtain legal redress for defendant, Brian Wilson’s illicit conduct – thus engaging in extortion to shield himself from liability; (d) making promises and inducements to Alan Jardine, a co-director of BRI, in order to induce Jardine’s vote to revoke the license and to block BRI from seeking legal redress for Wilson’s interference with the license; (e) threatening to revoke the license and either tour with Jardine or remove the touring license from the marketplace in order to promote Wilson’s touring band; and (f) engaging in several years of touring activity in competition with the license, and undermining its effectiveness in the marketplace while remaining as a Director of BRI.

I'm guessing all this stuff fell flat in terms of legal arguments, especially the contention that essentially amounts to contending that Brian merely touring as a solo act "undermines" the license.

I'm very neutral on the concept of Brian allegedly threatening to vote to take Mike's license away. But assuming Mike's own filing is true (and even if it exaggerates the "scheme" of doing so beyond what it actually was), it is interesting that the idea of attempting to take the license away has been batted around at some point.

[Cam Mott]

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

Imo neither is the lawyer or the suit lawyerly, the law cited was irrelevant, the lawyer lied in collusion with his friend, he tried to unsuccessfully disguise Mike's residency.  It seems very likely this attorney is responsible for the content and language of his own document to me. Is there something besides assumptions?

[SMiLE Brian]

Rogue lawyers, yeah right!!!!

[CenturyDeprived]

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

Imo neither is the lawyer or the suit lawyerly, the law cited was irrelevant, the lawyer lied in collusion with his friend, he tried to unsuccessfully disguise Mike's residency.  It seems very likely this attorney is responsible for the content and language of his own document to me. Is there something besides assumptions?

If there were some hard evidence, I'm sure you'd find a way to disprove it with research. Does it seem very likely that the client would not have had anything to do with so many aspects of the suit, and that there was a rogue conspiracy happening behind the client's back, including concocting fake people, writing out mean-spirited documentation, etc? (Waiting for your inevitable non-response). I am no legal expert, but imagine that would be pretty rare. OJ conspiracy type rare.  And then, how likely would it be for the client to just be passive about it after the fact? To have let the rogue lawyers just have done all that stuff behind their back, and additionally just do nothing legal about those corrupt doing-awful-things-100%-behind-their-client's-back lawyers after their corruption came to light?

Why is it so hard to imagine the remotest of remote possibilities that Mike could have been angry and bitter, and approved some of this stuff? Even one little portion that may have been overboard? Especially when he could have felt threatened, as was pretty clearly evidenced by HeyJude's legal quote.  

People who feel threatened and are angry are known to do/say/approve nasty legal things. It does happen.

[Doo Dah]

Also, in looking at the original 2005 lawsuit filing, I found one little bit that I've been searching out for a long time. During numerous discussions in the past several years about the touring name license, some have (I believe) contended that Brian never has and never would threaten to take Mike's license away. I always countered that, according to Mike's lawsuit filing, in at least one case Brian allegedly *did* threaten just that. So I finally found the section of the lawsuit that makes this contention, with my bolded/yellow emphasis:

116. Defendants intentionally engaged in the aforesaid acts or conduct relating to the promotion of the Smile CD and the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD, which prevented plaintiff from performing his contract with BRI to use The Beach Boys trademark or that caused performance under the contract to be more expensive or burdensome. In particular, by misappropriating the Trademark and the name and images of the band, and by “giving-away” Beach Boys classic hits, defendants have caused performance under the contract (License) to become more expensive and burdensome. In his capacity as one of the four Directors of BRI, the defendant, Brian Wilson, in concert with the other defendants, has further interfered with the performance of plaintiff’s contract with BRI by the following acts: (a.) organizing and orchestrating the described scheme; (b) failing to disclose the scheme to BRI and to plaintiff; (c) threatening to vote to revoke the license in the event plaintiff either individually or in his capacity as a Director of BRI attempted to obtain legal redress for defendant, Brian Wilson’s illicit conduct – thus engaging in extortion to shield himself from liability; (d) making promises and inducements to Alan Jardine, a co-director of BRI, in order to induce Jardine’s vote to revoke the license and to block BRI from seeking legal redress for Wilson’s interference with the license; (e) threatening to revoke the license and either tour with Jardine or remove the touring license from the marketplace in order to promote Wilson’s touring band; and (f) engaging in several years of touring activity in competition with the license, and undermining its effectiveness in the marketplace while remaining as a Director of BRI.

I'm guessing all this stuff fell flat in terms of legal arguments, especially the contention that essentially amounts to contending that Brian merely touring as a solo act "undermines" the license.

I'm very neutral on the concept of Brian allegedly threatening to vote to take Mike's license away. But assuming Mike's own filing is true (and even if it exaggerates the "scheme" of doing so beyond what it actually was), it is interesting that the idea of attempting to take the license away has been batted around at some point.

Sobering. That's a smoking gun in my opinion. The whole premise (going back to the 70's) that POB was a threat to the Beach Boys, and that Brian Wilson songs belong within the domain of the Beach Boys, and nothing else. Golden goose, indeed.

I've always suspected that, but I don't feel any sort of 'gotcha' having read that. I feel dispirited. It's a drag. Tragic even.

[SMiLE Brian]

No wonder BW broke down back in the 1970s, his creative spirit was tied to a "brand" or else (visits from rocky and stan).

[HeyJude]

Also, in looking at the original 2005 lawsuit filing, I found one little bit that I've been searching out for a long time. During numerous discussions in the past several years about the touring name license, some have (I believe) contended that Brian never has and never would threaten to take Mike's license away. I always countered that, according to Mike's lawsuit filing, in at least one case Brian allegedly *did* threaten just that. So I finally found the section of the lawsuit that makes this contention, with my bolded/yellow emphasis:

116. Defendants intentionally engaged in the aforesaid acts or conduct relating to the promotion of the Smile CD and the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD, which prevented plaintiff from performing his contract with BRI to use The Beach Boys trademark or that caused performance under the contract to be more expensive or burdensome. In particular, by misappropriating the Trademark and the name and images of the band, and by “giving-away” Beach Boys classic hits, defendants have caused performance under the contract (License) to become more expensive and burdensome. In his capacity as one of the four Directors of BRI, the defendant, Brian Wilson, in concert with the other defendants, has further interfered with the performance of plaintiff’s contract with BRI by the following acts: (a.) organizing and orchestrating the described scheme; (b) failing to disclose the scheme to BRI and to plaintiff; (c) threatening to vote to revoke the license in the event plaintiff either individually or in his capacity as a Director of BRI attempted to obtain legal redress for defendant, Brian Wilson’s illicit conduct – thus engaging in extortion to shield himself from liability; (d) making promises and inducements to Alan Jardine, a co-director of BRI, in order to induce Jardine’s vote to revoke the license and to block BRI from seeking legal redress for Wilson’s interference with the license; (e) threatening to revoke the license and either tour with Jardine or remove the touring license from the marketplace in order to promote Wilson’s touring band; and (f) engaging in several years of touring activity in competition with the license, and undermining its effectiveness in the marketplace while remaining as a Director of BRI.

I'm guessing all this stuff fell flat in terms of legal arguments, especially the contention that essentially amounts to contending that Brian merely touring as a solo act "undermines" the license.

I'm very neutral on the concept of Brian allegedly threatening to vote to take Mike's license away. But assuming Mike's own filing is true (and even if it exaggerates the "scheme" of doing so beyond what it actually was), it is interesting that the idea of attempting to take the license away has been batted around at some point.

Sobering. That's a smoking gun in my opinion. The whole premise (going back to the 70's) that POB was a threat to the Beach Boys, and that Brian Wilson songs belong within the domain of the Beach Boys, and nothing else. Golden goose, indeed.

I've always suspected that, but I don't feel any sort of 'gotcha' having read that. I feel dispirited. It's a drag. Tragic even.

Lots of tragedy in all of this, definitely.

For what it's worth, my reading of all of this is that Brian probably never had any intention of taking the license back or voiding it. I would guess, in this theory, it was more a case of "Seriously, you're going to file a frivolous, vindictive lawsuit like this? If that's the case, then let me refresh your memory as to exactly *who* voted to give you the license...."

I think Mike's case probably also fell apart because he is contending that Brian, by doing anything in his own best interest, is doing wrong by BRI. Problem is, Mike's touring operation isn't a BRI operation. When he (presumably) votes as a member of BRI to give himself (or whatever company runs Mike's tour) the license, he's acting in his own best interest. Now, Mike could of course argue that he feels it's also in the best interest of BRI. But that's completely subjective. He'd have a tough time arguing that Brian is trying to hurt his own company (BRI) by touring as a solo artist, especially when Brian indeed continues to take a percentage of the license fee from Mike's tour.

What does he think, Brian is double dipping by getting a (relatively small) cut of Mike's touring and also touring solo? I'm sure Mike would be free to *also* tour solo alongside either his own touring BB's or to grant the license to some other entity and tour solo.

But yes, it's all tragic, and nothing much came of it. Obviously, no vote to actually take the license away took place (as far as we know, and we do know for certain that Mike never lost the license). I'm not sure who won or lost in this stare down. Brian didn't have his bluff called and proceed to attempt to take the license away from Mike. But Mike's case was largely if not wholly a failure. I guess it was kind of a wash.  

I also find in interesting that a contention was made that Al had to be "induced" to vote against Mike. Especially back in 2005, would Al have needed any persuasion to do that? One would think not. Then again, ironically he may have needed the BRI license proceeds to pay for his lawyers in litigation against BRI (!), and perhaps wouldn't want to vote to revoke a BRI license unless an alternative (e.g. Brian and Al) would fill the income void. But I also think, both then and certainly now, my guess is that Al would be happy to simply "remove the license from the marketplace" now that he's able to tour with Brian.

Interesting (and sad and tragic) stuff.

[Doo Dah]

Not that any of this matters AT ALL, but it makes me wonder; when Al and Dave did that short post C50 tour with Brian, and then followed with Jeff Beck - does that bother Mike Love?

It shouldn't. If mean, why would it? Regular touring with all the accouterments of a well vested lifestyle, but does it? When I read legal briefs such as the above cited, it makes me think that he's a lot more thin skinned than people give him credit for.

We go to the shows. It's all about the music, right? And it's all good. There's plenty of music for everyone. But it seems as if someone still isn't happy. And it ain't too hard to figure out who.

[Empire Of Love]

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

Imo neither is the lawyer or the suit lawyerly, the law cited was irrelevant, the lawyer lied in collusion with his friend, he tried to unsuccessfully disguise Mike's residency.  It seems very likely this attorney is responsible for the content and language of his own document to me. Is there something besides assumptions?

I will address your question directly.  There is far more than assumption at play here:

1. Mike is a sharp guy, and by all accounts very intelligent.  It would be very difficult to persuade me that he did not read, and therefore approve of, the wording in the suit.

2. The statements in question are typical Mike Love talking points that we have all read and heard over and over again.

3. Mike has never disavowed the suit, at least not publicly.

4. Mike has never filed a lawsuit against the attorneys who represented him.  Given he is no stranger to legal strong arming and lawsuits, this strongly implicates him.

So, yes, we have a lot more than assumptions.  We have an intelligent man, we have motive, we have past experience with similar statements coming directly from Mike and we have a failure to disavow or sue.  All evidence points to Mike.  In fact , we have everything except the smoking gun.  It's a very strong case.

EoL

[HeyJude]

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

Imo neither is the lawyer or the suit lawyerly, the law cited was irrelevant, the lawyer lied in collusion with his friend, he tried to unsuccessfully disguise Mike's residency.  It seems very likely this attorney is responsible for the content and language of his own document to me. Is there something besides assumptions?

I will address your question directly.  There is far more than assumption at play here:

1. Mike is a sharp guy, and by all accounts very intelligent.  It would be very difficult to persuade me that he did not read, and therefore approve of, the wording in the suit.

2. The statements in question are typical Mike Love talking points that we have all read and heard over and over again.

3. Mike has never disavowed the suit, at least not publicly.

4. Mike has never filed a lawsuit against the attorneys who represented him.  Given he is no stranger to legal strong arming and lawsuits, this strongly implicates him.

So, yes, we have a lot more than assumptions.  We have an intelligent man, we have motive, we have past experience with similar statements coming directly from Mike and we have a failure to disavow or sue.  All evidence points to Mike.  In fact , we have everything except the smoking gun.  It's a very strong case.

EoL

Well put. In addition, looking at the 2010 appeals court ruling, it appears Mike attempted to use an "advice of counsel" defense in some of his appeals, arguing that he should not be punished (the punishment in this case being paying a myriad of attorneys fees to a myriad of defendants) for his lawyers' litigation strategy.

This appeal was also rejected (with some yellow text emphasis added by me below). The court used additional characterizations to describe the complaints, including "unreasonableness", "bad faith", "frivolous", and "unreasonable": 

D

In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards, Love attempts to assert what he calls an advice of counsel defense. He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy.

The only case that Love cites in his brief that could support an advice of counsel defense is Takecare Corp. v. Takecare of Okla., Inc., 889 F.2d 955 (10th Cir.1989). In Takecare, however, the exceptionality finding that supported an award of attorney's fees was based on the defendant's wilfully illegal use of a mark after having received notice of infringement. Id. at 957. The court held that “a party's reasonable reliance on the advice of counsel may defuse otherwise wilful conduct,” but that the defendant failed to prove reasonable reliance. Id. at 957-58.

Here, the district court's finding of exceptional circumstances was based not on wilful out-of-court conduct by Love, but rather on the unreasonableness of his Trademark claims and his continued pursuit of the claims in bad faith. Similarly, the Copyright attorney's fees were awarded based on the frivolous and unreasonable nature of those claims. If plaintiffs could evade attorney's fees awards by showing that the litigation was conducted based on the advice of counsel, attorney's fees would never be awarded to defendants under the Lanham or Copyright Acts. Cf. Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Very Minor Leagues, Inc., 223 F.3d 1143, 1148 (10th Cir.2000) (“[W]e disagree that there should be, or even could be, perfect harmony between the standard for awarding attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant. When attorney fees are awarded against a defendant, the court looks to whether the defendant's acts of infringement were pursued in bad faith. When attorney fees are awarded against a plaintiff, the court looks to the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the lawsuit and the manner in which it is prosecuted.”). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.XK4RWysG.dpuf

[Empire Of Love]

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

Yes it was. Both lawsuits, though, were brought up in the original article, so we've been discussing both. The songwriting credits one is, to me at least, much more interesting. The 2005 one was just a straight case of Mike absolutely, and indefensibly, being in the wrong.

Actually, I find the 2005 case far more interesting for at least two important reasons.  It raises the following questions:

1. Does Mike really believe these things?  If so, maybe he does struggle with mental illness as other posters have suggested.  This is an option I had not previously considered until it was brought up yesterday.  It is intriguing because if it is proven to be true it would illicit more compassion towards him (though his blaming and abrasive nature would still be more difficult to stomach than Brian's more passive temperament).

2. Is Mike willing to pervert the truth to this degree for money and/or satisfying his ego?  This is a real consideration.  If he denies Brian's vast contributions during this period (notice the suit was amended, but never to correct the dates), might he also exaggerate his song writing contributions against a largely passive and helpless Brian when even more money and ego were on the line in the original song writing credit lawsuit?  If the answer is yes in the 2005 suit, and clearly it is, what does that say about the prior suit?

To make the point, here is an updated list of Brian's song writing/recording/producing during the period in question:

When I Get Mad I Just Play My Drums
Crack The Whip
Little Red Book
Tones
I Love To Say Dada
Little Pad
Good Time Mama
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
With Me Tonight
She’s Goin Bald
Whistle In
Gettin Hungry
Wild Honey
Aren’t You Glad
Time To Get Alone
The Letter
Game Of Love
Italia
Cool, Cool, Water
Here Comes The Night
A Thing Or Two
Darlin
Can’t Wait To Long
Lonely Days
Let The Wind Blow
Mama Says
I’d Love Just Once To See You
Country Air
When A Man Needs A Woman
You’re As Cool As Can Be
Be Here In The Morning
Friends
Our Happy Home
Passing By
Busy Doin Nothin
Wake The World
Meant For You
Anna Lee The Healer
Transcendental Meditation
Diamond Head
Walk On By
Old Folks At Home/Old Man River
Do It Again
We’re Together Again
I Went To Sleep
Sail Plane Song
Loop De Loop
Santa’s Got An Airplane
Walkin
I’ll Keep On Loving You
As Tears Go By
Cotton fields
Tonight You Belong To Me
Tonight My Love
When Girls Get Together
All I Wanna Do
Deidre
Break Away
A World Of Peace Must Come (album)
Games Two Can Play
Our Sweet Love
Til I Die
Soulful Old Man Sunshine
Raspberries and Strawberries
At My Window
This Whole World
Add Some Music To Your Day
Where Is She?
Take A Load Of Your Feet
I Just Got My Pay
Good Time
Cows In The Pasture (album)
H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
My Solution
Lady Love
A Day In The Life Of A Tree
Silly Walls
Awake
Now That Everything’s Been Said
Beatrice From Baltimore
You Need A Mess Of Help
He Come Down
Marcella
Spark In The Dark
Funky Pretty
Mount Vernon And Fairway
Is Jack Reilly Really Superman
Burlesque
Sweet Mountain
Tennesse Waltz
Slip On Through
Mama Said
Superstar
Everybody
Starlight, Star Bright
Forever
Down Home
Baby I Need Your Lovin/Gimme Some Lovin (medley)
Sail on Sailor
Mike Come Back To LA
Some of Your Love
Snowflakes
Shyin Away
Fallin in Love
Had To Phone Ya
Shortenin Bread
Patty cake
Just An Imitation
Clangin
Ding Dang
Battle Hymn of the Republic
California Feelin
Child of Winter/Here Comes Santa Claus
Good TImin
It’s OK
You’re Riding High On The Music
Lucy Jones
Honeycomb
Come Go With Me
Winter Symphony
Running Bear
He So Fine
Let’s Dance
Secret Love
Peggy Sue
Blueberry Hill
Palisades Park
Honkin Down The Highway
Chapel Of Love
Talk To Me/Tallahassee Lassie
On Broadway
In The Still Of The Night
Mony Mony
Rock and Roll Music
Just Once In My Life
A Casual Look
TM Song
Everyone’s In Love With You
That Same Song
Michael Row The Boat Ashore
Shake Rattle And Roll
I’m Begging You Please
Let’s Put Our Hearts Together
Airplane
I’ll Be He’s Nice
Love Is A Woman
Mona
Still I Dream Of It
It’s Over Now
They’re Marching Along
Little Children
Marylin Rovell
That Special Feeling
Let Us Go On This Way
Johnny Carson
The Night Was So Young
I Wanna Pick You Up
Hey Little Tomboy
Lazy Lizzy
Sea Cruise
Solar System
Roller Skating Child
Hey There Mama
I Saw Santa Rockin
We Gotta Groove
You’ve Lost That Lovin Feelin
My Diane
The Boogie’s Back In Town
Cruise To Harlem
Life Is For The Living
Deep Purple
Lines
Everybody Wants To Live
It’s Trying To Say
Wontcha Come Out Tonight
She’s Got Rhythm
Sweet Sunday Kinda Love
Belles Of Paris
Pitter Patter
Matchpoint Of Our Love
Our Team
Don’t Be Cruel
Christmas Day
How About A Little Bit Of Your Lovin
How’s About A Little Bit
It’s Like Heaven
Almost Summer
Do Ya?
She’s Just Out To Get Ya
Basketball Rock
Bowling
Santa Ana Winds
Boys and Girls
Sunshine
Oh Darlin
Goin On
Goin To The Beach
Night Bloomin Jasmine
There’s So Many
Be My Baby
River Deep, Mountain High
Greenback Dollar
Why Don’t They Let Us Fall In Love?
Bucks
Children Of The Night
I’m A Man
Stevie
Sweetie
Love Ya
I Feel So Fine
Oh Lord
Yeah!
You’ve Been Good To Me
City Blues
Black Widow
Let’s Do It Again
In The Nighttime
The First Time
Crack At Your Love
California Calling
I’m So Lonely
It’s Just A Matter Of Time
Male Ego
The Lost Song
I’ve Been Through This One Before
Walking On Water
What’s Wrong With Starting Now?
Wondering What You’re Up To Now
You
A Bad Time Soon Forgotten
Water Builds Up
I’m Broke
Don’t Let Her Know She’s An Angel
Walkin The Line
Miller Time
After The Storm
A Little Love
All Over Me
California
Christmastime
Heavenly Bodies
I’m Tired
It’s Getting Rough
Labor Of Love
Magic
Magnetic Attraction
Pair Of Troops
Turning Point (a.k.a. So Long)
Just Say No
Brian/Thank You
The Spirit Of Rock And Roll
The Tiger’s Eye
Christine
Living Doll (a.k.a. Barbie)
Let’s Go To Heaven In My Car
Carl And Gina
Melt Away
Love and Mercy
Nighttime
Heavenly Lovers
Hotter
Magic Lanterns
Too Much Sugar
Rio Grande
Saturday Evening In The City
Baby Let Your Hair Grow Long
One For The Boys
Let It Shine
Meet Me In My Dreams Tonight
He Couldn’t Poor Old Body To Move
Doin Time On Planet Earth
Being With The One You Love
Goodnight Irene
In My Car
Country Feelins
Daddy’s Little Girl
Metal Beach
I Sleep Alone
Concert Tonight
I Do (a.k.a. Do You Have Any Regrets)
Let’s Stick (Get) Together
The Waltz
Smart Girls
Someone To Love
Rings
Make A Wish
Rainbow Eyes
Is There A Chance
Save The Day
Fantasy Is Reality/Bells of Madness
Sweets For My Sweet
This Could Be The Night
In My Moondreams
This Song Wants To Sleep With You
Gettin In Over My Head
Desert Drive
Soul Searchin
Chain Reaction Of Love
Dancin The Night Away
Elbow ’63
Everything’s Alright With The World
Frankie Avalon
God Did It
Goin Home
In The Wink Of An Eye
It’s Not Easy Being Me
Mary Anne
Marketplace
Must Be A Miracle
Slightly American Music
Some Sweet Day
Turn On Your Love Lights
What Rock And Roll Can Do
You’re Still A Mystery
Proud Mary
I Can Hear Music
Melinda, Honey
Our Babies Have Grown Up On Us
Right Before Your Eyes
Rock And Roll Express
Everything I Need
Miracle
This Isn’t Love
Your Imagination
South American
Where Has Love Been
Dream Angel
Cry
Lay Down Burden
Sunshine
Happy Days
Joy To The World
We’re Still Dancing
On Christmas Day
Silent Night

I would put that output up against almost all song writers of the pop/rock era with few exceptions - and this doesn't include songs written for TWGMTR and NPP.

If Mike can stretch this far, might he also have embellished his contributions to the early songs?  I think we all know he got less credit than he deserved in some instances.  But perhaps there is reason to question some of the credits he won.

I am sorry to ramble.  This is one of my favorite BB topics.  I don't care to own all of the demos, it doesn't matter to me who whispered what on a given demo and I've never made a Smile comp (my favorite era is Summer Days through Pet Sounds).  But I really would like to know who wrote what, including the recent Brian output that many question.  It all fascinates me for some unknown reason.  Thanks for bearing with me.

EoL

[Lonely Summer]

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

Everyone does. It's laughably wrong.

And that doesn't include all the times Brian toured with them - admittedly, it was sporadic, but not unusual to find Brian on stage with the guys after 1976.

[HeyJude]

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

Everyone does. It's laughably wrong.

And that doesn't include all the times Brian toured with them - admittedly, it was sporadic, but not unusual to find Brian on stage with the guys after 1976.

From late 1976 through some time in 1982, I'd say Brian was a pretty "regular" touring band member. He missed some shows, increasingly so in 1981 and especially 1982. But I think one could call him a regular during those five or six years. I don't think he missed that many shows from 1977 to 1980 in particular.

And certainly, with the exception of "Summer in Paradise", had some level of involvement in every studio album they recorded during this weirdly wide "1967-2002" time frame. Especially weird is that they choose 2002 as the cut-off for this supposedly inactive time frame. This ignores numerous solo albums and several solo tours.