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

[+Ed+]

I am in a deepest form of shock. People have been telling me for YEARS and fucking YEARS: open your eyes. And all I said in return was: fuck off, I love him to death.

No it's over.

I want his songs. I do not want to think of him as a human being.

Holy fucking shit.

[Sonic Tonic]

I truly think that for some of you it's time to move on to other music (musical heroes) or just understand that all are just human. Live was my life at a point my musical gods, but I moved on. I know it's hard but guys just realize that there is other AMAZING stuff out there. don't live in the past. TGF will be here soon. (y a it's bullshit cause im still here and reading every fucking comment and have my emotions rattled but I'm slowly fading from it)I don't know. I ranted much myself but these topics are beginning to bore me cause it's the same shit over and over so I'm down to making stupid "relief joke" comments. Pick up the latest Isis and Haken cd and enjoy music people!

[+Ed+]

Sonic, you are overright

[OutToDry]

I have just re-read this and checked a couple of things.
Firstly, these charges are not charges of "fraud" which, as I understand it, is a very specific legal offense in the United States. Amongst the qualifying factors for fraud are: 1. false statements which specifically affect someone's decision to pursue a certain course of action; 2. knowledge on the part of the accused that the statement is untrue; 3. intent to deceive and deny someone their legal rights; 4. the alleged victim must rely on this advice; 5. the alleged victim must be injured by this act.
Now in the document filed by Pat and the Chads, there is a very clear attempt to prove all of these 5 factors were present in the actions of Levin & DLBM, and that some or all of these factors were present in the charges against Ed (aiding & abetting and breach of contract) and FVI. However, the term "fraud" is nowhere used in all 16 pages of the document. Instead, "breach of fiduciary duty" is the major charge against Levin and DLBM - this, although serious, is not the same thing as fraud. It is basically a betrayal of trust, a failure to satisfy the ethical and legal obligations.
I don't know whether this is because of some fine point of definition of NYS law I don't understand (being neither a contract lawyer nor American), but the distinction interests me intellectually.

I used that word in a context which describes a fraudulant act....so it's really semantics

[Wambangalang]

interesting. I still can't see how this guy could just blatantly deny his friends/business partners their due legal entitlements. Not to mention the '29 fiasco. How do you do that and then hang out and have a beer with your mates? But i remain an indifferent observer until all the facts come to light. Who knows, maybe he wanted to reply to chads request for an explanation but his phone ran out of credit...it happens all the time

The Gracious Few should have named their debut album "The Million Dollar Advance"!

[Pokey]

interesting. I still can't see how this guy could just blatantly deny his friends/business partners their due legal entitlements. Not to mention the '29 fiasco. How do you do that and then hang out and have a beer with your mates? But i remain an indifferent observer until all the facts come to light. Who knows, maybe he wanted to reply to chads request for an explanation but his phone ran out of credit...it happens all the time

The Gracious Few should have named their debut album "The Million Dollar Advance"!

with their debut hit single "Levin' it all behind!"

[Wambangalang]

[jaybb]

If that was true, why did Chad Taylor get credit for Purifier?

I don't know the answer to that, but you can bet there's a reason for it. Nobody would risk a dismissal based on them lying about a contract like that. It must exist.

Perhaps they didn't consider the bootleg nature of the Paradiso album a true LIVE album. As many of the other songs on Paradiso were also written by other members of the band, as they had been written earlier in their career and therefore not covered.

[OutToDry]

I always wondered if Ed gave them some sort of ultimatum for the creative direction. I simply thought it was something as Fish described in his interactions. I am shocked at the news that their accountant's hands are dirty.............not so much that it's not happened before with other things in the entertainment industry. I wonder how good DL's books are on the accounting of commissions. I think this will settle out of court or get ugly......I can understand the hurt and shock they felt when they uncovered the FVI contract running over the 2005 agreement in which they let Ed have more of their share.

No mention of the lead singer bonus thing, which I figured was left out for obvious reasons. All this alienation from Ed......why? I've said in the past......had to be part of his MO from the beginning......my opinion of course.

[+Ed+]

THIS
IS
DISGUSTING

Holy fuck, howcome could a man do that?


Daaaaaaamn

[OutToDry]

Simple.....greed, ego, arrogance, avarice...............oh did I say greed

[Merica]

I'm not sure whether it's all quite as cut and dry as the document states. Like it really explicitly states how he demanded an ultimatum. Surely this COULD be something where they feel that's what he did, but maybe it was kind of given but in a much more round about way and he said he didn't want to have to do it and he meant that etc etc but it still seemed rotten and all that. I know that's straws, but that document is full of wonderfully piercing words and as much of a cock as Ed seems to be, I'm sure there were some legitimate reasons here and there that can soften certain blows.

I mean it's all very impressive to read, but for all I know Levin could come back with something that explains point by point how he didn't actually do anything wrong and I won't be able to argue with any of it. He could very well do that, for all we know.

Just saying, I know we've pretty much decided that Ed is the worst of all men, but listening to both sides of the story really is kind of important. And on that note, does anyone know if we'll definitely get to see his response? Will it end up on the same site?

[OutToDry]

I think it will once it's e-filed under the ID #

Now it's time to see any countering info.

[Merica]

I think it will once it's e-filed under the ID #

Now it's time to see any countering info.

Cool. Here's hoping that's not too far away.

[+Ed+]

The answer is expected in a MONTh after the doc is signed as I recall. That makes it only a couple more days for Ed to surface