Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[OutToDry]

I've been searching for public notes on what may be happening in the courtroom, here's one of them. I suspect the selling of bootlegs on Ed's website are not legal as they appear.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/New_Complaints.htm

Rock and RollThree members of the band Live claim their former lead singer Edward Kowalczyk owes them $225,000 for music he sold on his Web site, in New York County Court.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 14 2010, 2:59 pm

[FishOutaWater]

I *did* read the entire paragraph. Since I never got Chad's FOL email, I obviously am not going to have that as reference. But I did understand that Black Coffee was a majority rule corporation. And I was *asking you* for clarification of why you interpreted this the way you did and not asking you to be condescending douche
And what dictionary or source did you get *your* interpretation from?

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to be straightforward and inform.

Everybody around here has a hair trigger and personally attacks each other and especially Ed and Nick in practically every single post. I am frankly not enjoying the pointless shots that everyone takes at each other around here lately. It's getting harder to seperate the personal attacks and just look for discussions of substance. So, I wasn't trying to attack you. I am not going to get into a p*ssing match with you or anyone else here.

When I said "Read the entire paragraph" - I meant that if you read the whole paragraph together, it informs the meaning of the term "purported" as it is used in the paragraph. Because the end of paragraph 32 states that Ed executed the contract on behalf of both FVI and Black Coffee. You only quoted the first part of the paragraph in your post about the meaning of the word "purported". I was merely trying to note that if you read the entire paragraph as a whole, it seems to state that there is a question about the validity of the contract. Frankly, if that is a point they were trying to make, I think their lawyers could have explained that a little more clearly in the complaint.

And when I referred to a Websters Dictionary definition of "purported", I intended to say that the term "purported" has a particular meaning in documents such as this complaint, as opposed to a general, English language, dictionary definition of the term, such as the one you cited in your post. When someone says that a contract is a "purported" contract, they are not saying that they themselves are purporting it to be a contract and they are not sure it exists. They are saying that it is purported to be a contract by someone else (i.e. the parties to the contract) and they are not willing to concede that it is a valid contract.

I just wanted to explain myself. I think you read my post with a tone that resembles the hundred other attacks, flames, and pot shots that are posted here every day, and I was not intending to do that.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Jun 16 2010, 9:59 am