gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
650575 Posts in 25997 Topics by 3711 Members - Latest Member: whiskeyhill September 16, 2019, 03:30:48 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is Steve Love A Credible Source?  (Read 26744 times)
barsone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 133


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: March 26, 2016, 10:26:42 AM »

To both OT and EOL....great stuff guys.
Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: March 26, 2016, 12:21:20 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #152 on: March 26, 2016, 12:53:03 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 12:58:14 PM by Empire Of Love » Logged

Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: March 26, 2016, 12:56:10 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.
[/quote

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL

Agreed.  It's quite odd, isn't it?  And yet there's been no response as to what this has to do with Steve Love's credibility.   
Logged
Oswald Thatendswald
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18

I beat PEOPLE UP... to SAVE their LIFE!


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: March 26, 2016, 01:15:36 PM »

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

The clear this up, I've been a long lurker on the site.  I hated that it was impossible to have level-headed discussion about anything or anyone, particularly Mike (thanks largely to the same two culprits every time).  And I hated that so many threads devolved into posters attacking each other.  It's just not pleasant to read, and it wasn't something I felt like participating in.  But I still lurked, because this site does have a ton of intelligent posters, and I've learned a ton reading this site about a band I love.

Anyway, my wife (who is a big Beach Boys fan and also lurks) and I got so tired of one particular poster's shtick, with his constant "MyKe luHv" and emoticon filled "woot" posts, that we would often joke that it would be hilarious if those posts were parodied under the name "The LEGENDARY LSD."  So I posted a few times, emulating his EXACT style, and using "cuHsin brYhan."  Anyway, I thought it was funny, but after a few posts I stepped away, returning to lurking.  I wouldn't have even posted in the first place, but my wife made it the consequence of a bet over a game of SCRABBLE.  I took the bet, because I NEVER lose at SCRABBLE.  Well, until that game.  

But then Rocky Pamplin emerged and started spewing lies while claiming he was entitled to "poetic license."  BTW Rocky, try telling the judge in a defamation case that your false statements were "merely poetic license" and see how that works.  When Rocky started writing about immunity and a smoking-gun tape with perjury, I felt it would be useful if I stepped back in and provided the legal knowledge I possessed.  Hence the changed username and new posts.

As for what the legal discussion had to do with this thread, well, the alleged "shenanigans" and Rocky's claims about a smoking-gun tape were brought up in the original post of this very thread.  And a discussion as to whether or not Rocky could have immunity for such a tape seemed pertinent to the discussion that was occurring.


Finally, lest people think I am anti-Brian because I questioned Rocky's truthfulness or because of my prior parody posts, I am a huge Brian fan.  But I'm also a huge Carl, Al, Dennis, Bruce, Mike, Blondie, Ricky and David fan.  I like all of the Beach Boys, I have no hatred for any member of the group.  I believe that Mike is no saint, but then again they have all done things that are regrettable.  And I don't think calling out Rocky for lying makes anyone "pro-Mike" or "anti-Brian."
Logged

If my POST is not in any WAY FACTUAL... It's because I used POETIC LICENSE! Smiley Smiley
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: March 26, 2016, 01:53:24 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL

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


Debbie - More than once on this board, I have said that my fandom is as a Beach Boys' fan.  I agree with OT.  That makes three lawyers who have "gently" weighed in, in this highly contentious set of threads.  Maybe if you read the whole thread you will figure out the third.

First, the mods can tell by a person's IP address who is posting and when.  People used to change their handles often. It seems to happen less.  But they have the same IP addresses.  And, can check.

Second, almost any lawyer would have found the same things as OT, because the issues raised are the same and the rules come from the same place.    

The others dealt with the "content" (what was allegedly said) of the alleged tape.  I was thinking about the "instrumentality" or "means" of procuring this alleged tape without the "consent of all the parties."  Many states require consent of all the parties being recorded and CA is one of those.

OT gave both Federal and CA rules for hearsay and admissibility and credibility with "prior inconsistent statements." OT generously gave of his time to make that explanation. First, he is thanked. Then, gets disrespected.  

Of course, none of us who was not a witness, knows exactly what transpired other than the accounts of assaults and batteries, which I had read about in other BB related books.  Those who grew up in that era know that, even for the richest people, there was little effective treatment.  There is a scene in the Johnny Cash movie that reminds me of a similar scenario where the "June" character's father sat outside of the house with a shotgun when the dealers came selling their wares. That was their solution. They were extreme times.  I like to look at everyone's position and consider their role in the situation.  

It is my best understanding is that the mods can see the IP addresses so that if it was raised that issue would be solved quickly.  At some point, both OT and I were signed on last night and today.  Two names would have shown up with the same IP address as is the system I understand if it was the same person posting under two member names.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 01:54:22 PM by filledeplage » Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #156 on: March 26, 2016, 02:01:49 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL

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


Debbie - More than once on this board, I have said that my fandom is as a Beach Boys' fan.  I agree with OT.  That makes three lawyers who have "gently" weighed in, in this highly contentious set of threads.  Maybe if you read the whole thread you will figure out the third.

First, the mods can tell by a person's IP address who is posting and when.  People used to change their handles often. It seems to happen less.  But they have the same IP addresses.  And, can check.

Second, almost any lawyer would have found the same things as OT, because the issues raised are the same and the rules come from the same place.    

The others dealt with the "content" (what was allegedly said) of the alleged tape.  I was thinking about the "instrumentality" or "means" of procuring this alleged tape without the "consent of all the parties."  Many states require consent of all the parties being recorded and CA is one of those.

OT gave both Federal and CA rules for hearsay and admissibility and credibility with "prior inconsistent statements." OT generously gave of his time to make that explanation. First, he is thanked. Then, gets disrespected.  

Of course, none of us who was not a witness, knows exactly what transpired other than the accounts of assaults and batteries, which I had read about in other BB related books.  Those who grew up in that era know that, even for the richest people, there was little effective treatment.  There is a scene in the Johnny Cash movie that reminds me of a similar scenario where the "June" character's father sat outside of the house with a shotgun when the dealers came selling their wares. That was their solution. They were extreme times.  I like to look at everyone's position and consider their role in the situation.  

It is my best understanding is that the mods can see the IP addresses so that if it was raised that issue would be solved quickly.  At some point, both OT and I were signed on last night and today.  Two names would have shown up with the same IP address as is the system I understand if it was the same person posting under two member names.

I have no idea who either of you are and I don't care to weigh in on the question.  However, having one person login as two separate people with separate IP addresses would be exceedingly easy.  Two usernames appearing at the same time proves nothing in this case or any other.

With that said, we should end the Rocky red herring and get back to the topic of this post, namely whether or not Steve Love is a credible source.  As I mentioned previously:

What are we to make of the following:

1. Mike asks for a few song writing credits and 750k.  Brian's lawyers urge him not to settle and next thing you know Mike takes a defenseless Brian to the cleaners and comes away with far more credits than originally requested.  Something seems off about this from the get go.

2. Mike files the "Smile lawsuit" against Brian in 2005, makes a series of provably absurd false claims regarding Brian in the lawsuit.  The lawsuit lasts around five years and is filled with shenanigans including at least one false witness.

3. Steve Love acknowledges in a deposition that there were shenanigans at play in the song writing credit lawsuit.

4. Rocky seems to be saying there is a smoking gun tape that we expose perjury in the song writing credits case.  Whatever you think about him, he seems to be acknowledging he and at least one other (Steve, Stan, someone else) committed perjury.

If Steve is credible as some have suggested, and given Mike's embellishing of the truth in the 2005 lawsuit, what does this imply in regards to his claims in the song credit lawsuit?

EoL
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 02:02:57 PM by Empire Of Love » Logged

filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: March 26, 2016, 02:19:16 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL

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


Debbie - More than once on this board, I have said that my fandom is as a Beach Boys' fan.  I agree with OT.  That makes three lawyers who have "gently" weighed in, in this highly contentious set of threads.  Maybe if you read the whole thread you will figure out the third.

First, the mods can tell by a person's IP address who is posting and when.  People used to change their handles often. It seems to happen less.  But they have the same IP addresses.  And, can check.

Second, almost any lawyer would have found the same things as OT, because the issues raised are the same and the rules come from the same place.    

The others dealt with the "content" (what was allegedly said) of the alleged tape.  I was thinking about the "instrumentality" or "means" of procuring this alleged tape without the "consent of all the parties."  Many states require consent of all the parties being recorded and CA is one of those.

OT gave both Federal and CA rules for hearsay and admissibility and credibility with "prior inconsistent statements." OT generously gave of his time to make that explanation. First, he is thanked. Then, gets disrespected.  

Of course, none of us who was not a witness, knows exactly what transpired other than the accounts of assaults and batteries, which I had read about in other BB related books.  Those who grew up in that era know that, even for the richest people, there was little effective treatment.  There is a scene in the Johnny Cash movie that reminds me of a similar scenario where the "June" character's father sat outside of the house with a shotgun when the dealers came selling their wares. That was their solution. They were extreme times.  I like to look at everyone's position and consider their role in the situation.  

It is my best understanding is that the mods can see the IP addresses so that if it was raised that issue would be solved quickly.  At some point, both OT and I were signed on last night and today.  Two names would have shown up with the same IP address as is the system I understand if it was the same person posting under two member names.

I have no idea who either of you are and I don't care to weigh in on the question.  However, having one person login as two separate people with separate IP addresses would be exceedingly easy.  Two usernames appearing at the same time proves nothing in this case or any other.

With that said, we should end the Rocky red herring and get back to the topic of this post, namely whether or not Steve Love is a credible source.  As I mentioned previously:

What are we to make of the following:

1. Mike asks for a few song writing credits and 750k.  Brian's lawyers urge him not to settle and next thing you know Mike takes a defenseless Brian to the cleaners and comes away with far more credits than originally requested.  Something seems off about this from the get go.

2. Mike files the "Smile lawsuit" against Brian in 2005, makes a series of provably absurd false claims regarding Brian in the lawsuit.  The lawsuit lasts around five years and is filled with shenanigans including at least one false witness.

3. Steve Love acknowledges in a deposition that there were shenanigans at play in the song writing credit lawsuit.

4. Rocky seems to be saying there is a smoking gun tape that we expose perjury in the song writing credits case.  Whatever you think about him, he seems to be acknowledging he and at least one other (Steve, Stan, someone else) committed perjury.

If Steve is credible as some have suggested, and given Mike's embellishing of the truth in the 2005 lawsuit, what does this imply in regards to his claims in the song credit lawsuit?

EoL
EoL - I can tell when I am reading a post written by someone with a legal education. 

You may know more about the world of IP addresses but two different people being accused of being one poster with two posting names is ridiculous. 

Without the court transcripts of these purported depositions in my hand, it is impossible to speculate.  You are using what you have read here and maybe other sources you might have.   

OT had some words of wisdom.  A message board may not be the best place to have this discussion.  An attorney's office might be.   Just sayin'.

P.S.
To those who celebrate this religious weekend, may it be in peace, and utmost safety.   Wink
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #158 on: March 26, 2016, 02:34:47 PM »

The BBs are a band, not a court room entity.
Logged

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

Posts: 243


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: March 26, 2016, 02:35:33 PM »

You may know more about the world of IP addresses but two different people being accused of being one poster with two posting names is ridiculous. 

If you honestly think that then I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: March 26, 2016, 02:39:54 PM »

You may know more about the world of IP addresses but two different people being accused of being one poster with two posting names is ridiculous. 

If you honestly think that then I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
In the world of VPN use, you may be correct. 
Logged
Theydon Bois
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: March 26, 2016, 02:42:02 PM »

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

The clear this up, I've been a long lurker on the site.  I hated that it was impossible to have level-headed discussion about anything or anyone, particularly Mike (thanks largely to the same two culprits every time).  And I hated that so many threads devolved into posters attacking each other.  It's just not pleasant to read, and it wasn't something I felt like participating in.  But I still lurked, because this site does have a ton of intelligent posters, and I've learned a ton reading this site about a band I love.

Anyway, my wife (who is a big Beach Boys fan and also lurks) and I got so tired of one particular poster's shtick, with his constant "MyKe luHv" and emoticon filled "woot" posts, that we would often joke that it would be hilarious if those posts were parodied under the name "The LEGENDARY LSD."  So I posted a few times, emulating his EXACT style, and using "cuHsin brYhan."  Anyway, I thought it was funny, but after a few posts I stepped away, returning to lurking.  I wouldn't have even posted in the first place, but my wife made it the consequence of a bet over a game of SCRABBLE.  I took the bet, because I NEVER lose at SCRABBLE.  Well, until that game.  

But then Rocky Pamplin emerged and started spewing lies while claiming he was entitled to "poetic license."  BTW Rocky, try telling the judge in a defamation case that your false statements were "merely poetic license" and see how that works.  When Rocky started writing about immunity and a smoking-gun tape with perjury, I felt it would be useful if I stepped back in and provided the legal knowledge I possessed.  Hence the changed username and new posts.

As for what the legal discussion had to do with this thread, well, the alleged "shenanigans" and Rocky's claims about a smoking-gun tape were brought up in the original post of this very thread.  And a discussion as to whether or not Rocky could have immunity for such a tape seemed pertinent to the discussion that was occurring.

I think, on balance, you might have been better off creating a completely new account, since a posting history of comedy trolling isn't necessarily the best advertisement for one's credibility.  But more importantly, I bloody love Scrabble and will gladly challenge you to a contest if it helps to resolve any outstanding business in Beach Boys land.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: March 26, 2016, 03:21:36 PM »

EoL, did Rocky say that he himself was one of the perjurers or that he and Stan were discussing perjurers without specifying who they were?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: March 26, 2016, 04:23:26 PM »

Debbie, excuse my off-topic and very ignorant question, but can you quickly explain the distinction between Ivar and BRI?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 05:45:34 PM by Emily » Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #164 on: March 26, 2016, 04:44:28 PM »

EoL, did Rocky say that he himself was one of the perjurers or that he and Stan were discussing perjurers without specifying who they were?

I am not sure this has been made clear, but I will save talk of Rocky for his thread and leave this thread for the question(s) regarding Steve Love.

EoL
Logged

Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: March 26, 2016, 04:52:12 PM »

mmkay, but in your post 8 or so above, with 4 premises and a question regarding the conclusion they'd lead to, the 4th premise depends upon Rocky's less-than-clear information. Is your post off-topic or would you simply prefer that I not ask questions about it?
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: March 26, 2016, 05:21:29 PM »

Can someone refresh my memory, what case is Steve referring to when he says he was "deposed at length in AUG 2006 in connection with the Jardine-Love case"?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: March 26, 2016, 05:24:56 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.

Ha.  If you look at his entire post history it is all pro-Mike propaganda, several of which are OSD parodies (though pro-Mike).  It almost screams a second identity of another poster.  Maybe SB was right...

EoL

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


Debbie - More than once on this board, I have said that my fandom is as a Beach Boys' fan.  I agree with OT.  That makes three lawyers who have "gently" weighed in, in this highly contentious set of threads.  Maybe if you read the whole thread you will figure out the third.

First, the mods can tell by a person's IP address who is posting and when.  People used to change their handles often. It seems to happen less.  But they have the same IP addresses.  And, can check.

Second, almost any lawyer would have found the same things as OT, because the issues raised are the same and the rules come from the same place.    

The others dealt with the "content" (what was allegedly said) of the alleged tape.  I was thinking about the "instrumentality" or "means" of procuring this alleged tape without the "consent of all the parties."  Many states require consent of all the parties being recorded and CA is one of those.

OT gave both Federal and CA rules for hearsay and admissibility and credibility with "prior inconsistent statements." OT generously gave of his time to make that explanation. First, he is thanked. Then, gets disrespected.  

Of course, none of us who was not a witness, knows exactly what transpired other than the accounts of assaults and batteries, which I had read about in other BB related books.  Those who grew up in that era know that, even for the richest people, there was little effective treatment.  There is a scene in the Johnny Cash movie that reminds me of a similar scenario where the "June" character's father sat outside of the house with a shotgun when the dealers came selling their wares. That was their solution. They were extreme times.  I like to look at everyone's position and consider their role in the situation.  

It is my best understanding is that the mods can see the IP addresses so that if it was raised that issue would be solved quickly.  At some point, both OT and I were signed on last night and today.  Two names would have shown up with the same IP address as is the system I understand if it was the same person posting under two member names.

This is quite quizzical, FdP.  I never linked you to this mysterious attorney, yet I seem to be painted here as doing that.  Why so defensive FdP?  Seriously.  I never mentioned your SS name, nor your IP address.  You brought it up.  

And my main point was to bring this back to the topic of the thread - Stephen Love.  As far as I know, he never said he perjured himself.  Why is this now about Rocky and all this other business, other than to derail a thread?  

Edit:  Oddly my original, fairly brief post seems to be mixed in with all of your quotes in some odd amalgam.   How did your posts become mixed with mine?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 05:34:26 PM by Debbie KL » Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: March 26, 2016, 05:28:06 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.
Debbie, excuse my off-topic and very ignorant question, but can you quickly explain the distinction between Ivar and BRI?

Not a problem - Ivar was the BBs/Brother Records offices late 60's/very early 70's when Nick Grillo was Manager and Stephen Love was apprenticing.  BRI is Brother Records International - that continued after these offices were closed, to this day.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: March 26, 2016, 05:31:54 PM »

I don't think this thread is good for my blood pressure. But I'm going to say that I'm confused how the Rocky tape is off-topic since, from the very opening post, it's been linked throughout the thread to the main question, which seems to be - given the claims Rocky's making about the tape and the claims Steve has made about a deposition, do people think the writing credit lawsuit was on the up-and-up? If the OP wants us to take the stance that those two premises are fact and just answer without discussing the premises, that's fine, I guess, but kind of a strange exercise and makes the title question moot.
Otherwise, discussing the Rocky tape is discussing the premises which seems pretty on-topic.  edited to add: I think there's a bit of a conflict between the title and opening post regarding what the topic really is.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 05:49:21 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: March 26, 2016, 05:33:02 PM »

Okay, someone help me out here.  What does this have to do with Stephen Love's credibility?  Apparently, the claims were about the testimony of Rocky/Rushton and Stan Love.  It's been interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to him.  I'm not disputing.  Just asking a question.  I've even made the mistake of mixing Stan and Steve when I write about this, as my personal experience was "Stan and Rocky."  But Stephen wasn't at Brian's every day in the late 70's.  In fact, I never saw him after the late 60's at the Ivar offices.  I don't think he ever claimed that he perjured himself at the songwriting trial.

So who is this mysterious attorney who suddenly appeared after these odd, much less literate, anti-Brian posts that seemed to appear randomly.  It's so curious.
Debbie, excuse my off-topic and very ignorant question, but can you quickly explain the distinction between Ivar and BRI?

Not a problem - Ivar was the BBs/Brother Records offices late 60's/very early 70's when Nick Grillo was Manager and Stephen Love was apprenticing.  BRI is Brother Records International - that continued after these offices were closed, to this day.
So Ivar was physical offices, rather than a company name... that's where I was confused. Thank you.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 05:47:54 PM by Emily » Logged
LeeDempsey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 749


Avatar: Brian Wilson circa 1957


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: March 26, 2016, 05:38:35 PM »

Brother Records
1654 North Ivar Avenue
Hollywood, CA

Debbie is not alone in referring to the Brother offices as "Ivar" -- Fred Vail does so as well.  It too me a while into my first lengthy conversation with Fred to figure out what he was talking about when he referred to "meeting at Ivar" or "a decision made at Ivar."  Smiley

Lee

Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: March 26, 2016, 05:46:37 PM »

Brother Records
1654 North Ivar Avenue
Hollywood, CA

Debbie is not alone in referring to the Brother offices as "Ivar" -- Fred Vail does so as well.  It too me a while into my first lengthy conversation with Fred to figure out what he was talking about when he referred to "meeting at Ivar" or "a decision made at Ivar."  Smiley

Lee



Fred and I were next door neighbors at that time.  Yeah, it's a bad habit, referring to a business and a set period of time as a single entity, normally lacking further explanation.  Well put.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 05:56:24 PM by Debbie KL » Logged
LeeDempsey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 749


Avatar: Brian Wilson circa 1957


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: March 26, 2016, 06:09:53 PM »

Brother Records
1654 North Ivar Avenue
Hollywood, CA

Debbie is not alone in referring to the Brother offices as "Ivar" -- Fred Vail does so as well.  It too me a while into my first lengthy conversation with Fred to figure out what he was talking about when he referred to "meeting at Ivar" or "a decision made at Ivar."  Smiley

Lee



Fred and I were next door neighbors at that time.  Yeah, it's a bad habit, referring to a business and a set period of time as a single entity, normally lacking further explanation.  Well put.


Debbie, I'm sure everyone in the organization referred to that period, entity, and location colloquially as "Ivar."  I even have a few pieces of memorabilia (press kits and the like) that are marked something like "Copy for Ivar." At first I was wondering who "Ivar" was!  Smiley

Lee
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #174 on: March 26, 2016, 06:27:43 PM »

mmkay, but in your post 8 or so above, with 4 premises and a question regarding the conclusion they'd lead to, the 4th premise depends upon Rocky's less-than-clear information. Is your post off-topic or would you simply prefer that I not ask questions about it?

Yes, my post was off topic.  Also, to clarify, I was saying that Rocky has not been clear as to who is on the tape and that I was going to honor the requests above to stay on topic going forward.

EoL
Logged

gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.156 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!