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

[jclive]

These to points will loom large: (so there must have been interactions with Levin which turned up these notions/actions)

36. The Plaintiffs repeatedly requested that Levin assist them in recovering the
$225,000 that they are owed under the 2005 Agreement. Levin not only refused to assist
Plaintiffs but also wrongly informed them that they were not entitled to receipt of the $225,000.
In making this wrongful assertion, Levin improperly favored one of his fiduciaries - Kowalczyk
- over the three Plaintiffs, to whom he also owed fiduciary duties.

37. Levin committed the foregoing wrongful acts because he valued his
relationship with Kowalczyk more than his relationship with the Plaintiffs. Levin believed that
Kowalczyk would have the most profitable career in the years to come, and wished to continue
representing Kowalczyk if and when he left the band LIVE and embarked on a solo career.

On point 36.. "Levin refused to assist Plaintiffs" - maybe because his expertise tells him that there is nothing to assist them with. "Wrongly informed them" - opinion. "In making a wrongful assertion" - again, opinion. If a mistake was made, it will be rectified.

On point 37... Conjecture. Not fact.


This is going to be a pretty easy one to settle. And in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the overall success of these 4 talented musicians), its really not over a whole lot of $$.

J

[jclive]

Totally, and without the other 3, Ed is JUST a singer, creatively he's gone to shit. Hell he proved that even in the dying years of Live when the other 3 were still around but wern't able to take part in the writing process. Saying that without Ed as the singer it just isn't Live ... well to me it "just wasn't Live" when all the song writing credits read as just Ed because Ed isn't Live.
And if Nick wants to pipe up with "well thats just your opinion.." then I'll point him to those sales and such that he loves so much and how well Live did in those late years compared to when they all wrote together.

Yes, he is just a singer w/o the other 3. But I guarantee you that the common listener will identify his voice as the dude who sang that Lightning Crashes song long before they'll pick out Chad, Chad, and Pats contribution to whatever group they are a part of. It doesnt make anyone more or less talented.

Judge Ed's creativity as you wish. Some will say he's lost it. Some will absolutely love the new direction. Everyone, however, is correct in their own opinion.

Weren't able to take part in the writing process?? Its the path they chose on their own.

J

[crazy1]

And another point....there would have been no band called LIVE if it wasn't for Pat, Chad T. and Chad G. They are the ones who originally formed Live. They ARE Live.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Weren't able to take part in the writing process?? Its the path they chose on their own.

Only if you dismiss #29.

[Sonic Tonic]

Sometimes I wish they just would have taken a break after TDTH. How would things look today if Ed just said: Hey guys, I got some stuff I'd love to create on my own, do some solo stuff for a year or 2. LOTS of musicians do side projects to get other creative ideas out of their system.
A band like Tool comes back every 5 years with a new (amazing) album every time and those 4 guys are very good friends. But between the albums they have many other projects, ventures and side bands (most notably Keenan's A Perfect Circle)
But I'm just blabbing here typing out thoughts and wishes between all this legal mumbo jumbo that's being discussed here lol. And obviously what's done is done and what could have been is just that; what could have been.
Any who, back to your scheduled People's Court that we have going here. (off to get more popcorn)

[Pokey]

On point 36.. "Levin refused to assist Plaintiffs" - maybe because his expertise tells him that there is nothing to assist them with. "Wrongly informed them" - opinion. "In making a wrongful assertion" - again, opinion. If a mistake was made, it will be rectified.

On point 37... Conjecture. Not fact.
This is going to be a pretty easy one to settle. And in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the overall success of these 4 talented musicians), its really not over a whole lot of $$.

sJn1279

[jclive]

Only if you dismiss #29.

There's no wrong doing asserted in #29. An 'ultimatum' is presented (whether it be verbal or written is of no consequence), and they chose to go along with it. At this point, I would assume that Ed was ready to jump ship. He told the guys how it was going to be if they wanted him to remain as the lead singer, and they decided that they'd take the path that they took.

The alternate decision would have been to say 'no' to Ed's ulitmatum. Live would have ended right there, and who knows what would have happened next.

[jclive]

I am Jason. Nice to meet you.

[Pokey]

There's no wrong doing asserted in #29. An 'ultimatum' is presented (whether it be verbal or written is of no consequence), and they chose to go along with it. At this point, I would assume that Ed was ready to jump ship. He told the guys how it was going to be if they wanted him to remain as the lead singer, and they decided that they'd take the path that they took.

The alternate decision would have been to say 'no' to Ed's ulitmatum. Live would have ended right there, and who knows what would have happened next.

We went over this, there is no wrong doing from how it reads. At least no wrong doing legally. But morally, it is a fucking cuntish thing to do to your friends.
But like it's been mentioned, that doesn't appear to be a point that they are making the fight over, purely just some background information.

How easy would it have been for him to go "Hey guys I want to write on my own for a bit, I'm thinking of doing some solo stuff, maybe we should take a break and get back together in a couple of years for more Live stuff?" .. nope, he gave his friends an ultimatum ... you don't give your friends ultimatums. He instead wanted to use the Live name to maximise sales, he wanted musicians he knew were good rather than having to go off and form a new group with some psychotic looking drummer. It was an act of pure greed and ego. Absolute major loss of respect for it.

This post has been edited by Pokey: Jun 15 2010, 8:52 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

There's no wrong doing asserted in #29. An 'ultimatum' is presented (whether it be verbal or written is of no consequence), and they chose to go along with it. At this point, I would assume that Ed was ready to jump ship. He told the guys how it was going to be if they wanted him to remain as the lead singer, and they decided that they'd take the path that they took.

The alternate decision would have been to say 'no' to Ed's ulitmatum. Live would have ended right there, and who knows what would have happened next.

Yes, but to say they chose that path on their own is simply untrue.

If they had approached Ed and said "we want you to get all the songwriting credit" then it would be true.

[Sakhmet2]

On point 36.. "Levin refused to assist Plaintiffs" - maybe because his expertise tells him that there is nothing to assist them with. "Wrongly informed them" - opinion. "In making a wrongful assertion" - again, opinion. If a mistake was made, it will be rectified.

On point 37... Conjecture. Not fact.
This is going to be a pretty easy one to settle. And in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the overall success of these 4 talented musicians), its really not over a whole lot of $$.

J

Well, if not conjecture, it's allegation. And there's not proof of certain things, such as the contract I mentioned above.

I think we should go back to Hammurapi's Law Code:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

The second one just cries out "Live" doesn't it ? There's a river and everything.

This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: Jun 15 2010, 9:02 am

[Sonic Tonic]

How easy would it have been for him to go "Hey guys I want to write on my own for a bit, I'm thinking of doing some solo stuff, maybe we should take a break and get back together in a couple of years for more Live stuff?"

Do we have like the same thought pattern going on at the same time. I just wrote pretty much that above lol.

[crazy1]

There's no wrong doing asserted in #29. An 'ultimatum' is presented (whether it be verbal or written is of no consequence), and they chose to go along with it. At this point, I would assume that Ed was ready to jump ship. He told the guys how it was going to be if they wanted him to remain as the lead singer, and they decided that they'd take the path that they took.

The alternate decision would have been to say 'no' to Ed's ulitmatum. Live would have ended right there, and who knows what would have happened next.

It may not be wrongdoing...it's just unethical to hold something over somebody's head like that. They had no other choice to go along with it. Live was their "job" so to speak.

[jclive]

We went over this, there is no wrong doing from how it reads. At least no wrong doing legally. But morally, it is a fucking cuntish thing to do to your friends.
But like it's been mentioned, that doesn't appear to be a point that they are making the fight over, purely just some background information.

What's so wrong about the situation? "Hey guys, I'm ready to leave the band. Oh, you guys you want me to stay around and keep Live together? Then considering what I would prefer to do with my own life, things need to work like THIS for me to stay around. Yall cool with that? Ok then, let's keep going."

I'm in the staffing business. We deal with similar scenarios every day.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

What's so wrong about the situation? "Hey guys, I'm ready to leave the band. Oh, you guys you want me to stay around and keep Live together? Then considering what I would prefer to do with my own life, things need to work like THIS for me to stay around. Yall cool with that? Ok then, let's keep going."

I'm in the staffing business. We deal with similar scenarios every day.

Bands do and should operate differently than that.

If a band JUST becomes a business then the art will suffer (which it did).