gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
650712 Posts in 26004 Topics by 3711 Members - Latest Member: JPP4 September 21, 2019, 11:05:22 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is Steve Love A Credible Source?  (Read 26804 times)
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2016, 11:12:53 AM »

Btw, curious how you know the tape was recorded circa 2005/6??

Your mentions of untruths in the 2005 lawsuit: possibly a dubious deduction on my part.
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2016, 11:17:19 AM »

Maybe the question should not be "is Steve Love a credible source ?" but "is Rocky Pamplin a credible conduit ?" By his own admission he's prone to "poetic license". Or as my father would call it, lying.
Logged

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

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2016, 11:21:10 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:31:48 PM by Emily » Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2016, 11:23:02 AM »

Debbie - I don't think you'd done anything to harm your credibility, so to question it was unwarranted. I think both Rocky and Stephen (through Rocky and through the finding of embezzlement) have harmed their credibility. I think the question of the thread is "is Steve Love a Credible Source" and I think not.

CenturyDeprived, I specified above that I think anyone who chooses to believe that everything Rocky says is absolutely NOT true is also following their bias. The problem is that anyone thinking about it honestly without bias would say, at this point, we have no way of determining what he says is true and what he says isn't without independent confirmation.

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.
Bright and ethical (or honest) are two different things.
Regarding the case, Rocky posted something that said that Stephen Love was exonerated of something, but there was no evidence it referred back to the embezzlement case. And the proceedings of the original case and the case for exoneration aren't available, as far as I know, so it's not clear to any of us what happened there. The text we do have does not state that the judge found there was no original wrongdoing. But, aside from that, I think that Stephen Love has shown himself to be highly unethical. You've seen that his brother has made outrageous claims he was unable to back up; why would you assume that Stephen, someone who allies himself closely and publicly with Rocky and someone who is willing to resort to the sort of things that happened under his management in the '70s for the sake of profit, wouldn't make outrageous false claims? I can think of a few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims.
Again, I don't think the claims are necessarily untrue. I just don't think Rocky and Stephen have shown themselves to be credible.

I'm going to add that the fact that Stephen has been saying this stuff online for a few years now, but hasn't initiated any legal activity, effects his credibility as well. And the pretty obvious vengeful attitude he bears toward his siblings.

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?

Thanks, I'm not a viper.  My real comparison was just "benefit of the doubt" until we have more information.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:26:59 AM by Debbie KL » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4899



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2016, 11:26:22 AM »

Debbie - I don't think you'd done anything to harm your credibility, so to question it was unwarranted. I think both Rocky and Stephen (through Rocky and through the finding of embezzlement) have harmed their credibility. I think the question of the thread is "is Steve Love a Credible Source" and I think not.

CenturyDeprived, I specified above that I think anyone who chooses to believe that everything Rocky says is absolutely NOT true is also following their bias. The problem is that anyone thinking about it honestly without bias would say, at this point, we have no way of determining what he says is true and what he says isn't without independent confirmation.

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.
Bright and ethical (or honest) are two different things.
Regarding the case, Rocky posted something that said that Stephen Love was exonerated of something, but there was no evidence it referred back to the embezzlement case. And the proceedings of the original case and the case for exoneration aren't available, as far as I know, so it's not clear to any of us what happened there. The text we do have does not state that the judge found there was no original wrongdoing. But, aside from that, I think that Stephen Love has shown himself to be highly unethical. You've seen that his brother has made outrageous claims he was unable to back up; why would you assume that Stephen, someone who allies himself closely and publicly with Rocky and someone who is willing to resort to the sort of things that happened under his management in the '70s for the sake of profit, wouldn't make outrageous false claims? I can think of a few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims.
Again, I don't think the claims are necessarily untrue. I just don't think Rocky and Stephen have shown themselves to be credible.

I'm going to add that the fact that Stephen has been saying this stuff online for a few years now, but hasn't initiated any legal activity, effects his credibility as well. And the pretty obvious vengeful attitude he bears toward his siblings.

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?

I agree with Debbie, and I'll also add that it's possible for someone to be revenge-minded or profit-minded, and for that same someone to also be credible and have inside information about a topic. Those are not mutually exclusive attributes.  

If Stephen and/or Rocky deduced that they could somehow have maximum impact in some fashion, whether that be revenge, monetary gain, or whatever, and waited until the moment when they'd gain the most publicity possible, that may make them "jerks" or worse in some peoples' minds, but IMHO that in and of itself says nothing about their credibility (or lack thereof), or the fact that it seems absurd that they'd make major allegations up out of thin air, directed at a person who is likely the most litigious person they personally know. That right there is the hardest thing to believe, even if compared to the entirety of the Rocky thread... and I've yet to see anyone even attempt to propose a theory that could logically make that scenario "fit". I imagine FDP has an app for that though.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:37:20 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4931


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2016, 11:37:02 AM »

Debbie - I don't think you'd done anything to harm your credibility, so to question it was unwarranted. I think both Rocky and Stephen (through Rocky and through the finding of embezzlement) have harmed their credibility. I think the question of the thread is "is Steve Love a Credible Source" and I think not.

CenturyDeprived, I specified above that I think anyone who chooses to believe that everything Rocky says is absolutely NOT true is also following their bias. The problem is that anyone thinking about it honestly without bias would say, at this point, we have no way of determining what he says is true and what he says isn't without independent confirmation.

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.
Bright and ethical (or honest) are two different things.
Regarding the case, Rocky posted something that said that Stephen Love was exonerated of something, but there was no evidence it referred back to the embezzlement case. And the proceedings of the original case and the case for exoneration aren't available, as far as I know, so it's not clear to any of us what happened there. The text we do have does not state that the judge found there was no original wrongdoing. But, aside from that, I think that Stephen Love has shown himself to be highly unethical. You've seen that his brother has made outrageous claims he was unable to back up; why would you assume that Stephen, someone who allies himself closely and publicly with Rocky and someone who is willing to resort to the sort of things that happened under his management in the '70s for the sake of profit, wouldn't make outrageous false claims? I can think of a few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims.
Again, I don't think the claims are necessarily untrue. I just don't think Rocky and Stephen have shown themselves to be credible.

I'm going to add that the fact that Stephen has been saying this stuff online for a few years now, but hasn't initiated any legal activity, effects his credibility as well. And the pretty obvious vengeful attitude he bears toward his siblings.

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?

Exactly! No one described as a bright person would back themselves into such a corner unless they had the evidence to back up such a claim. Especially when their claim goes fully against one of the most notoriously known litigious prone people in the entertainment business.

Maybe the question should not be "is Steve Love a credible source ?" but "is Rocky Pamplin a credible conduit ?" By his own admission he's prone to "poetic license". Or as my father would call it, lying.

It's not just Pamplin we're talking about. Steve Love, brother of Mike and former Beach Boys manager, made a similar admission of known shenanigans. He testified in a deposition back in 2006 that shady stuff went on - he didn't admit this stuff for attention, or money - he was just testifying the truth. Rocky claims there is a tape that proves lying took place during the songwriting lawsuit. Then we see the 2005 lawsuit makes outlandish claims about Brian's involvement in the band post '67, as well as bringing forth a fake witness...showing that shenanigans aren't outside the norm when it comes to Mike Love lawsuits. All of that evidence stacked up is pretty damning. Again, I'm not saying the accusations are true. But they deserve to be looked at more closely.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

The Beach Boys legacy is still being mortared to this day...it has a solid and unbreakable foundation of incredible songs that tower above most bands, yet some bricks are more brittle and ugly than others (even some bricks put down more recently)...thus is the nature of any entity that continues to exist. You are not defined solely by your good achievements in life, you're also defined by those unpleasant moments too. This law of life, thankfully, helps keep us all in check.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2016, 11:40:17 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:31:13 PM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4899



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2016, 11:42:57 AM »

Debbie - I don't think you'd done anything to harm your credibility, so to question it was unwarranted. I think both Rocky and Stephen (through Rocky and through the finding of embezzlement) have harmed their credibility. I think the question of the thread is "is Steve Love a Credible Source" and I think not.

CenturyDeprived, I specified above that I think anyone who chooses to believe that everything Rocky says is absolutely NOT true is also following their bias. The problem is that anyone thinking about it honestly without bias would say, at this point, we have no way of determining what he says is true and what he says isn't without independent confirmation.

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.
Bright and ethical (or honest) are two different things.
Regarding the case, Rocky posted something that said that Stephen Love was exonerated of something, but there was no evidence it referred back to the embezzlement case. And the proceedings of the original case and the case for exoneration aren't available, as far as I know, so it's not clear to any of us what happened there. The text we do have does not state that the judge found there was no original wrongdoing. But, aside from that, I think that Stephen Love has shown himself to be highly unethical. You've seen that his brother has made outrageous claims he was unable to back up; why would you assume that Stephen, someone who allies himself closely and publicly with Rocky and someone who is willing to resort to the sort of things that happened under his management in the '70s for the sake of profit, wouldn't make outrageous false claims? I can think of a few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims.
Again, I don't think the claims are necessarily untrue. I just don't think Rocky and Stephen have shown themselves to be credible.

I'm going to add that the fact that Stephen has been saying this stuff online for a few years now, but hasn't initiated any legal activity, effects his credibility as well. And the pretty obvious vengeful attitude he bears toward his siblings.

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?

Exactly! No one described as a bright person would back themselves into such a corner unless they had the evidence to back up such a claim. Especially when their claim goes fully against one of the most notoriously known litigious prone people in the entertainment business.

Maybe the question should not be "is Steve Love a credible source ?" but "is Rocky Pamplin a credible conduit ?" By his own admission he's prone to "poetic license". Or as my father would call it, lying.

It's not just Pamplin we're talking about. Steve Love, brother of Mike and former Beach Boys manager, made a similar admission of known shenanigans. He testified in a deposition back in 2006 that shady stuff went on - he didn't admit this stuff for attention, or money - he was just testifying the truth. Rocky claims there is a tape that proves lying took place during the songwriting lawsuit. Then we see the 2005 lawsuit makes outlandish claims about Brian's involvement in the band post '67, as well as bringing forth a fake witness...showing that shenanigans aren't outside the norm when it comes to Mike Love lawsuits. All of that evidence stacked up is pretty damning. Again, I'm not saying the accusations are true. But they deserve to be looked at more closely.

I might add that it seems that Steve has been making posts on that man vs. clown site for some time now. That site's been up for years in fact. For those wondering why it's taken so long for this to come out (if the tapes were recorded years back) as it seems it will come out in further detail in Rocky's book, perhaps Steve was putting out test feelers for awhile on that site, bit by bit, to see what (if any) legal retribution would happen to him if he were to drop hints about an allegation he had information about, before going forward with making the details more widely known. That would not seem an implausible scenario to me. For whatever differences they have, the Love brothers would seem to have the "wait for the right moment to strike for maximum impact" thing in common.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:45:50 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4899



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2016, 11:46:55 AM »


Hypothetically speaking, if one doesn't have firm evidence or even doesn't have firm facts but knows that there's something off about something, one could dangle hints in hopes of receiving funds to stop dangling.

This scenario I could see as being not out of the question.
Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2016, 11:55:36 AM »

Debbie - I don't think you'd done anything to harm your credibility, so to question it was unwarranted. I think both Rocky and Stephen (through Rocky and through the finding of embezzlement) have harmed their credibility. I think the question of the thread is "is Steve Love a Credible Source" and I think not.

CenturyDeprived, I specified above that I think anyone who chooses to believe that everything Rocky says is absolutely NOT true is also following their bias. The problem is that anyone thinking about it honestly without bias would say, at this point, we have no way of determining what he says is true and what he says isn't without independent confirmation.

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.
Bright and ethical (or honest) are two different things.
Regarding the case, Rocky posted something that said that Stephen Love was exonerated of something, but there was no evidence it referred back to the embezzlement case. And the proceedings of the original case and the case for exoneration aren't available, as far as I know, so it's not clear to any of us what happened there. The text we do have does not state that the judge found there was no original wrongdoing. But, aside from that, I think that Stephen Love has shown himself to be highly unethical. You've seen that his brother has made outrageous claims he was unable to back up; why would you assume that Stephen, someone who allies himself closely and publicly with Rocky and someone who is willing to resort to the sort of things that happened under his management in the '70s for the sake of profit, wouldn't make outrageous false claims? I can think of a few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims.
Again, I don't think the claims are necessarily untrue. I just don't think Rocky and Stephen have shown themselves to be credible.

I'm going to add that the fact that Stephen has been saying this stuff online for a few years now, but hasn't initiated any legal activity, effects his credibility as well. And the pretty obvious vengeful attitude he bears toward his siblings.

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?
Hypothetically speaking, if one doesn't have firm evidence or even doesn't have firm facts but knows that there's something off about something, one could dangle hints in hopes of receiving funds to stop dangling.
Or, one could be hoping to sell the story, couched in terms of 'poetic license' which makes it pretty easy to squirm out of libel accusations. For instance, I put "hypothetically speaking" ahead of what I'm saying.
Or, one could be pretty much broke and know they have nothing to lose, so figure as long as they're going down anyway, they might take a few enemies down with them.

Again, though, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that these suggestions are likely based in fact. I just think the eagerness to believe them (edit to clarify "them" being the people, not the claims) belies bias, not balance. It's a little fox newsish to pick your sources based on what they're saying rather than their credibility.

** saw the two posts just before I posted this.
I'm going to step out of this.
I think some posters are not separating the credibility of the speaker from the credibility of the claims and are asserting that because the claims are credible, the speaker is too. I think that's not so. I think that Stephen Love has shown that he puts profit before ethics and that he has a deep grudge against both of his brothers. Anyone thinking straight would recognize that these qualities harm his credibility as a witness, even if what he's saying is true.  
If you believe what he's asserting, fine. If you want to pretend he's credible because it makes you feel better about believing him, fine.

Sorry.  I think as you said to a previous poster, this is a question of semantics.  I can't say that I have any proof that Stephen is a liar at this point, that's all.  We'd have to see all the information and hear from the other side to determine that fairly.  Does he have biases?  Of course, as would nearly any other person making claims.  I agree there.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4931


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2016, 11:58:42 AM »

Debbie - I don't think you'd done anything to harm your credibility, so to question it was unwarranted. I think both Rocky and Stephen (through Rocky and through the finding of embezzlement) have harmed their credibility. I think the question of the thread is "is Steve Love a Credible Source" and I think not.

CenturyDeprived, I specified above that I think anyone who chooses to believe that everything Rocky says is absolutely NOT true is also following their bias. The problem is that anyone thinking about it honestly without bias would say, at this point, we have no way of determining what he says is true and what he says isn't without independent confirmation.

Bringing up Steve's embezzlement as an issue of credibility? The court wiped those charges clean in 1996. He talks about it in the ManvsClown blog. Debbie KL (who had first hand experience) said Steve Love was a bright man. Again, these allegations are incredibly serious, and though you may not think the people making these accusations are credible, they would basically be committing financial suicide by making these libelous claims unless they had evidence to back it up.
Bright and ethical (or honest) are two different things.
Regarding the case, Rocky posted something that said that Stephen Love was exonerated of something, but there was no evidence it referred back to the embezzlement case. And the proceedings of the original case and the case for exoneration aren't available, as far as I know, so it's not clear to any of us what happened there. The text we do have does not state that the judge found there was no original wrongdoing. But, aside from that, I think that Stephen Love has shown himself to be highly unethical. You've seen that his brother has made outrageous claims he was unable to back up; why would you assume that Stephen, someone who allies himself closely and publicly with Rocky and someone who is willing to resort to the sort of things that happened under his management in the '70s for the sake of profit, wouldn't make outrageous false claims? I can think of a few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims.
Again, I don't think the claims are necessarily untrue. I just don't think Rocky and Stephen have shown themselves to be credible.

I'm going to add that the fact that Stephen has been saying this stuff online for a few years now, but hasn't initiated any legal activity, effects his credibility as well. And the pretty obvious vengeful attitude he bears toward his siblings.

I'm wondering here about the "few scenarios where it might make financial sense to make these libelous claims."  The only way I can imagine it is if there is some provable truth to the claims.  Do you have some other scenarios in mind?
Hypothetically speaking, if one doesn't have firm evidence or even doesn't have firm facts but knows that there's something off about something, one could dangle hints in hopes of receiving funds to stop dangling.
Or, one could be hoping to sell the story, couched in terms of 'poetic license' which makes it pretty easy to squirm out of libel accusations. For instance, I put "hypothetically speaking" ahead of what I'm saying.
Or, one could be pretty much broke and know they have nothing to lose, so figure as long as they're going down anyway, they might take a few enemies down with them.

Again, though, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that these suggestions are likely based in fact. I just think the eagerness to believe them (edit to clarify "them" being the people, not the claims) belies bias, not balance. It's a little fox newsish to pick your sources based on what they're saying rather than their credibility.

** saw the two posts just before I posted this.
I'm going to step out of this.
I think some posters are not separating the credibility of the speaker from the credibility of the claims and are asserting that because the claims are credible, the speaker is too. I think that's not so. I think that Stephen Love has shown that he puts profit before ethics and that he has a deep grudge against both of his brothers. Anyone thinking straight would recognize that these qualities harm his credibility as a witness, even if what he's saying is true.  
If you believe what he's asserting, fine. If you want to pretend he's credible because it makes you feel better about believing him, fine.

The lawsuit brought forth by Mike Love himself in 2005 shows he puts profit over ethics - so based on this logic I guess we can assume that his credibility goes down the tubes as well? And I guess that makes his claims in the songwriting credits case not credible?

Also, I don't think anyone is eager to believe Steve or Rocky. I've said time and time again that the truth hasn't been found yet, and that it should be sought out - no matter what the outcome. Credibility or no credibility, these are serious allegations surrounded by a history of shady lawsuit tactics, and no matter what the truth is, this shouldn't be tossed aside and ignored.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

The Beach Boys legacy is still being mortared to this day...it has a solid and unbreakable foundation of incredible songs that tower above most bands, yet some bricks are more brittle and ugly than others (even some bricks put down more recently)...thus is the nature of any entity that continues to exist. You are not defined solely by your good achievements in life, you're also defined by those unpleasant moments too. This law of life, thankfully, helps keep us all in check.
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5694



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2016, 12:01:47 PM »

I wonder how Mike, or Brian, would react to this thread?
Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2016, 12:02:49 PM »

deleted
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:30:43 PM by Emily » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2450


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2016, 12:06:55 PM »

Emily, I am perplexed at your stance here. Did Rocky really get to you? Seems you now have a bias and you've lost your objectivity! You have always been a source of reason and common sense on the Board.

Say what you want about Rocky, he isn't a complete idiot. In that, he wouldn't set himself up for a huge libel lawsuit from Mike without some type of evidence.

Also, though he obviously has done some embellished writing, he has not proven to make up incidences. For example, I have heard from a source, who has a source, that Brian did punch out Mike.

Right now there is a) Stephen's deposition b) the tape of Stan admitting perjury c) Rocky's testimony

My question is why no action from Brian's side? Have the statute of limitations expired or do Brian's camp feel it wouldn't be financially worthwhile to litigate this thing?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:17:02 PM by OregonRiverRider » Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2016, 12:18:02 PM »

deleted
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:30:02 PM by Emily » Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2016, 12:22:46 PM »

Quote
Why dredge this up again? This case was  litigated in court and reached a conclusion.  Each side had an opportunity to present their case and a decision was reached.  You're just spinning wheels rehashing all of this stuff.  And for whatever it's worth, wasn't Steve Love a convicted felon at some point?

Uhh, because there is one person who claims to have lied in a court of law for that suit in the prosecutors favor...so the conclusion reached for that suit was possibly based on lies. Let's keep in mind that this lawsuit is one of the most famous lawsuits in rock-n-roll history. So I'm not "spinning wheels", just trying to get people to focus on finding the truth...no matter what the truth is.

If you're referring to the Mike Love case against BW, no prosecutors were involved, it was a civil lawsuit.  If one side told lies during trial, such as ML, then BW and his lawyers would have had time to prove the claims were lies.  My understanding has been, that Mike Love claimed he wasn't given songwriting credit for a number of  songs that were released/published, and that is basically true.

From experience and no comment on the Loves or Wilsons, lies, half-truths, fabrications, misrepresentations are commonplace in lawsuits and trials.  It's the jury's job, not an easy one, to sort out the truth.  Steve Love may had the criminal case dismissed against him or expunged from his record after serving out the terms of his plea bargain, but that is not the same as being exonerated.  
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4899



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2016, 12:29:21 PM »

I wonder how Mike, or Brian, would react to this thread?

I wonder how Van Dyke Parks would react to this thread.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4899



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2016, 12:35:31 PM »

Thanks for your vote of confidence, anyway.
But - I'm not clear that Rocky isn't a complete idiot. Given the complete idiocy of some of his posts and not of others, and given the highly inside and detailed financial information he offered, I'm assuming someone else, most likely Stephen, is working with him on some of the posts.
I agree that he doesn't make things up entirely, but I think if someone's giving me information and initially presents it all as fact, but then when people point out errors say things like "poetic license" and whatever fact-fiction portmanteau he made up, it means I no longer know what part of what he's saying is true and what part isn't, so I can't hang my hat on any of it. To think "this part sounds true, so I'll believe it and this part doesn't sound true, so I guess that's the poetic license" is to assert my own bias onto the story. Without asserting my bias, the fact is that I no longer know when Rocky is telling the truth and when he's not.
Also, we don't know that the tape is of Stan admitting perjury. It's of Rocky and Stan discussing some unnamed as yet people committing perjury. Unless they are talking about themselves, it's just gossip, hearsay. Not just legally, but logically, you'd need further evidence than Rocky and Stan saying person Y committed perjury to fully believe it. So that leaves Stephen's deposition. I have no idea what that says. And, again, Stephen has been doing some pretty unhinged underhanded stuff to express his anger at his brothers. I think it harms his credibility when they are the topic.
Ugh.
Look, for me, here's the problem. I really like and usually agree with the people I'm arguing with in this thread, so it's making me very unhappy to be having this argument. I'm sorry we don't agree. I wish I could agree with you, but I don't.    I'm very sorry about it.

I'm going to add - I never assumed that BW didn't punch ML. But you see how much that third party validation matters? Because who can tell based on Rocky's word alone? I would love if someone else, with credibility, stepped into the discussion to support the truth of the claims. I feel frustrated that the only people we are hearing from have shown themselves to be either fantasists or unethical dirtbags. I would very much like, say Debbie or Ray Lawlor, to be able to say "OK, here's what really happened with the credits lawsuit" and if they reinforced what Rocky's saying, I would have no trouble believing them. But Rocky and Steve are not Debbie or Ray Lawlor.


Third party corroboration of things that Rocky has said would be preferable, though I imagine that anyone who still in 2016 retains any sort of relationship to anyone in the BB organization wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. And understandably. Only an exiled person with nothing to lose relationship-wise, and I would think nothing to lose from a legal standpoint (as far as what retaliation could come out of outright fabricating complete lies), would go this far.. I'd imagine.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:36:28 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2450


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2016, 12:36:53 PM »

I am guessing that some of the information Rocky is bringing forth is new. Like the Stan tape existence.

Will this even come to court?
Will Mike sue Rocky?

Interesting stuff!
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:37:47 PM by OregonRiverRider » Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Doo Dah
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 590


One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter.


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2016, 12:38:09 PM »

Quote: I wonder how Van Dyke Parks would react to this thread.

He would probably respond in riddle-form.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but no match for a dangling participle.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:39:26 PM by Doo Dah » Logged

AGD is gone.
AGD is gone.
Heigh ho the derry-o
AGD is gone
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2016, 12:41:15 PM »

Mike really couldn't come out any worse if this tape of his lawsuit tricks is true.
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
Doo Dah
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 590


One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter.


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2016, 12:50:10 PM »

Last night on CBS I caught word that McCartney is perusing a recapture of the Beatles publishing catalog, under the terms of the US Copywright Act of 1976. As per the link below, the United States' 1976 Copyright Act gives songwriters an avenue for reclaiming lost publishing rights on songs released before 1978. All they have to do is to wait 56 years meaning that songs like Love Me Do, released in 1962, will be eligible in 2018

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/aug/11/paul-mccartney-beatles-back-catalogue

To my knowledge, Brian does not own his publishing. He merely received an awarded settlement, which led to Mike's lawsuit. Could this mean that the Beach Boys publishing circa '62 to '66 will be available in the next few years? If SO, it would behoove Brian, Melinda and all interested parties to put this dog to bed. Once and for all.

If possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that all kinds of merda would hit the fan from Mike.
Logged

AGD is gone.
AGD is gone.
Heigh ho the derry-o
AGD is gone
Fire Wind
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 299



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 21, 2016, 01:15:15 PM »



Also, though he obviously has done some embellished writing, he has not proven to make up incidences.



What do we take from his story about him puking after hearing California Feeling in the car?  Was he in on the joke, or can he be led rather easily by the nose?
Logged

I still can taste the ocean breeze...
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 21, 2016, 01:17:34 PM »

Doo Dah, you have found the answer why Mike is so angry recently about the songwriting lawsuit from 1994.

He wants the catalog or money from BW when it comes up for ownership changes in under the 1976 copyright act. Actual songwriting credits on those songs be damned. Evil
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
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2450


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 21, 2016, 01:37:04 PM »



Also, though he obviously has done some embellished writing, he has not proven to make up incidences.



What do we take from his story about him puking after hearing California Feeling in the car?  Was he in on the joke, or can he be led rather easily by the nose?
You are in the wrong thread, this is the Stephen Love thread...
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 02:31:03 PM by OregonRiverRider » Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.2 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!