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

[+Ed+]

Then why did Ed agree to Believe

[SJN1279]

Ed designated himself ...................as others pointed it out many times.....himself. Selfishness.

Other side of the coin, if your friend gave you can ultimatum to sign something that you didn't agree with, would you sign it? I know I wouldn't.

So either, they were okay enough with it, or they are spineless.

[OutToDry]

Spineless is your word.....I think you know the word well.

If it was something that affected my partnership and my livelihood, I may try all I can to make it work before I said fuck it.....which I beleive the Chads & Pat did for a long time.

[Pokey]

Other side of the coin, if your friend gave you can ultimatum to sign something that you didn't agree with, would you sign it? I know I wouldn't.

So either, they were okay enough with it, or they are spineless.

Other side of the coin, would you really want to try and force your friend to sign something they didn't want to by threatening to end your relationship with them? I know I wouldn't.

[SJN1279]

Other side of the coin, would you really want to try and force your friend to sign something they didn't want to by threatening to end your relationship with them? I know I wouldn't.

Answer my question though, would you sign the contract that they did?

Maybe Ed wanted to go solo, but they didn't. So he basically said in order to stay together, he wanted full control. In business, it is okay to branch out and try new things.

[SJN1279]

If it was something that affected my partnership and my livelihood, I may try all I can to make it work before I said fuck it.....which I beleive the Chads & Pat did for a long time.

Which is totally cool, but after you sign a contract, you can't bitch about the contents within.

[Pokey]

Answer my question though, would you sign the contract that they did?

Maybe Ed wanted to go solo, but they didn't. So he basically said in order to stay together, he wanted full control. In business, it is okay to branch out and try new things.

In their situation, if the contract were a short term thing and had a limited time frame on how long it was in effect for then I probably would have signed it for the sake of the band and the friendship. If it was a "from here on in..." thing and I didn't like the way things were going, the no I wouldn't have signed it.

Lets say that legally Ed is in the clear for this one and that it is ruled that the other guys shot themselves in the foot by signing the document. What is legally right isn't what is always morally right and if I were Ed I would absolutely never try to force or blackmail me friends into signing something like that if they didn't want to. And regardless of why they signed it you absolutely can not believe that they signed it without voicing their real opinions and concerns to Ed, he HAD to have known they wern't 100% comfortable with it.

It was a fucking dick move to make motivated by money, greed and ego. If you think that is all ok, then Nick you are a really sad individual.

[OutToDry]

Which is totally cool, but after you sign a contract, you can't bitch about the contents within.

Yeah they didn't bitch about it......when this was found in later 2009......all bets were off.

32. Subsequent to the 2005 Agreement, Kowalczyk entered into a purported contract between Mucho Loco, on one hand, and Black Coffee and FVI, on the other hand (hereafter the “FVI Contract”). Kowalczyk executed the FVI Contract on behalf of Black Coffee and FVI. Upon information and belief, Levin assisted Kowalczyk with the negotiation of the FVI Contract.

and contined in sections 33-39



This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 15 2010, 5:48 am

[possum]

This is going to be a really bad divorce.


I know we need to wait for this to play out, but we're talking about four guys that grew up together and were best friends. If the group was split 2 v 2 then who knows, but since it's the guys v Ed that speaks volumes. Ed is a shady, money grubbing shit bag.

[VoodooLady]

So it gives him the power to hand out writing credit. The rest had a choice to sign it, and they did. And the simple reason was for money, not friendship.

another "SIMPLE" reason- is to keep the band together..

[Wambangalang]

im open to both sides of the story when and if they surface, but that doesnt make sense nick. (btw, can we have a dedicated icon that you can click which automatically imports "that doesnt make sense nick" into the text body, because its becoming a pain in the ass to write?). On the awake dvd interview ed harps on about band relations and being a cohesive unit, and how they are successful because they are first and foremost a "band".

That was 2004. So in 2005 ed suddenly decides he doesn't want this anymore? Maybe something else happened in the friendship dynamic to change his mind. Can't you just ask him?

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Which is totally cool, but after you sign a contract, you can't bitch about the contents within.

Given that the ultimatum and resulting contract isn't even in the "complaint" section of the document, they aren't bitching about it. It is there to state what took place and why a different contract was signed in 2005.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother to read the thing, yet you sit here posting about it like you know what it says.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I am interested to hear the other side of the story, but I can predict that it will be a whole lot of legal jargon and twisted music business logic.

I'm sure it will satisfy some and make the rest of us want to throw up.

[Sakhmet2]

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

Contract law *is* semantics.
And, strictly speaking, not all of what is alleged against Levin is fraudulent, which in the broadest sense of the term is false representation of material fact for advantage. Some of the stuff is fraudulent, of course, but most of it falls into the category of breach of trust since Levin and his company had been given power of attorney over the bank accounts and corporate entities of all four of the band. For all I know in NYS this may be a more serious (as well as a more accurate) charge.

I'm not sure whether it's all quite as cut and dry as the document states.

It never is. Reading a few contested divorce cases is enough to convince anyone that people in a relationship are not always in the same relationship - or on the same planet.

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.

Did you ever see "Almost Famous"? There's that scene in the airplane where all the band members tell the lead guitarist that they hate him because (they feel) he's always holding it over their heads that he might leave, and that he "holds himself above" them. Classic man. Read about a lot of bands, and that's how it is. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens.

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.

I agree. There are plenty of puzzling things about these claims. Not least of which is the continued existence of the band after agreeing to the contract.

I am interested to hear the other side of the story, but I can predict that it will be a whole lot of legal jargon and twisted music business logic.
I'm sure it will satisfy some and make the rest of us want to throw up.

Which will be different from this how?
These are allegations, not proven fact yet.

[+Ed+]

Allegations, signed and stapled by the judge?