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

[Bremang]

Alright.....I just skimmed that legal doc really quick....

Filed May 17...amazing

Ed's ultimatum? Wow, very interesting.


I wish we could get more out of this situation. This looks to me like any other big business account where one party stalls.

Ed made payment of 75 G's. When?? Was it payed before or after the breakup? Either the band must have known about some sort of deal all along or Ed's been shelling out dough after he got reamed by Chad on blogs.

Why did Levin say the plaintiffs are not entitled to the 300G sum?? Wow, what does this guy know?

The guys want royalties for all the EK albums sold online? Oh man, Ed could skew those figures. But did Ed really make a lot of money of those things? Who the heck bought that crap?


....Ed was legally obliged to answer by now. Where is the response? Keep searching!

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jun 15 2010, 10:09 pm

[OutToDry]

Youre way late to this thread Bre.

[Bremang]

Youre way late to this thread Bre.

lol jeez I skip one day and all this......I see I repeated alot of what was said here.

Still, I wonder when the 75g's was paid. Cause I mean, it seems like everybody here has a big head in the business, was Ed really trying to sneak money away, or was he doing this up front? Ed hadn't actually wanted to break up the band for good, would you agree?


I mean, check out these priceless friendship videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX0VRu_zKbI&feature=related

Check 18 sec. mark

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQwhB6Bo_zk

check 1:15 mark

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jun 15 2010, 10:25 pm

[Sakhmet2]

First: The "secret" contract is apparently the $1 million advance for the next Live album. It seems that Chad, Chad and Pat didn't know about that contract. When they found out, they demanded their aggregate 30% pursuant to the 2005 Agreement and Ed and David Levin refused them. That's the damning part. That is the stealing from friends. Ed had a 2005 contract with Chad, Chad and Pat to pay them each 10%, and he went out on his own and signed a contract for a $1 million advance and didn't tell the others about it and didn't pay them their percentage pursuant to their contract (and still refuses to do so).

I liked the summary, but one thing should be noted about the $1mill and the "secret contract"- and I've already said this once, so I'll say it again:
P. 10, para 32 of the brief:
"Subsequent to the 2005 Agreement, Kowalczyk entered into a purported contract between Mucho Loco, on one hand, and Black Coffee and FVI"

Para 33 says
"Mucho Loco in turn paid FVI the sum of $1 million dollars as a so-called publishing advance for the compositions on the next Live album (hereafter, "the Million Dollar Advance")"

So according to para 32 the agreement which led to the Million dollar advance is not only secret, it's a "purported" contract, which to me means that the lawyers for CT/CG&PD have no proof that this exists.

This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: Jun 15 2010, 11:49 pm

[+Ed+]

Yall ever been thru a divorce? That's exactly what this reminds me of. Lots of name calling, finger pointing, accusations of wrong-doing, etc. In the end, there are only 2 people who really ever know exactly how things were.

Holy shit, here you go again with the divorse issue. I have been through a divorse, after 10 years of relationship, stop thinking you are the only one god damn it. In the end usually there is one side to leave it all behind and another side to be neglected, left and forgotten. So it does really remind of some parts,. but not the hole thing.

[OutToDry]

Getcha popcorn

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 16 2010, 2:41 am

[SecretInsomnia]

Well, let me respond. Quite an impressive (AND depressive at the same time) read. Both that document and all your posts.

This doesn't look good for Ed. But - as others have stated - I find it hard to believe if this all is really so black and white as stated here. This is not, a black and white world Sure, I believe it will be more black then white, I'm not trying to defend Ed here, and Chad,Chad and Pat may be right with everything. But if Ed was really the exact asshole as described here, we would at least sensed a little of it in his persona, and we haven't. We sure saw him acting strange at times (stories I heard from back stage visits) and he didn't hang out last few years with the 3, but I can't fully believe it's as black as white as you might think it is. The fact Ed refuses to respond in any way so far makes him even more guilty for many, I understand, but let's appreciate the beauty of grey until we know at least ANYTHING from his side.

[FishOutaWater]

I liked the summary, but one thing should be noted about the $1mill and the "secret contract"- and I've already said this once, so I'll say it again:
P. 10, para 32 of the brief:
"Subsequent to the 2005 Agreement, Kowalczyk entered into a purported contract between Mucho Loco, on one hand, and Black Coffee and FVI"

Para 33 says
"Mucho Loco in turn paid FVI the sum of $1 million dollars as a so-called publishing advance for the compositions on the next Live album (hereafter, "the Million Dollar Advance")"

So according to para 32 the agreement which led to the Million dollar advance is not only secret, it's a "purported" contract, which to me means that the lawyers for CT/CG&PD have no proof that this exists.

The word "purported" doesn't necessarily mean that they have no proof that it exists. If they didn't know whether it exists, it would have said "alleged" contract. Or they might have said that on information and belief, they believe there was a contract. The word "purported" could mean that FVI and Ed purport to have a contract with Mucho Loco, and Chad, Chad, and Pat challenge the validity of that contract. If you don't want to necessarily concede the validity of a contract, you call it a "purported" contract. Maybe they challenge the validity of the contract because Black Coffee is a purported party to the contract and maybe they challenge the authority of Ed, FVI and or David Levin to enter into the contract on behalf of Black Coffee.

I'm just saying that I have seen it written here several times that the word "purported" means that they don't know that a contract exists, and I am saying that is not necessarily what that means.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Jun 16 2010, 5:59 am

[VoodooLady]

If you don't want to necessarily concede the validity of a contract, you call it a "purported" contract. Maybe they challenge the validity of the contract because Black Coffee is a purported party to the contract and maybe they challenge the authority of Ed, FVI and or David Levin to enter into the contract on behalf of Black Coffee.

exactly! that is how i interpreted the word purported, specifically because the charge/statement includes Black Coffee, and how can one person enter into a contract on behalf of all 4?

[Sakhmet2]

The word "purported" doesn't necessarily mean that they have no proof that it exists. If they didn't know whether it exists, it would have said "alleged" contract. Or they might have said that on information and belief, they believe there was a contract. The word "purported" could mean that FVI and Ed purport to have a contract with Mucho Loco, and Chad, Chad, and Pat challenge the validity of that contract. If you don't want to necessarily concede the validity of a contract, you call it a "purported" contract. Maybe they challenge the validity of the contract because Black Coffee is a purported party to the contract and maybe they challenge the authority of Ed, FVI and or David Levin to enter into the contract on behalf of Black Coffee.

I'm just saying that I have seen it written here several times that the word "purported" means that they don't know that a contract exists, and I am saying that is not necessarily what that means.

I know that lawyers don't use any word without very carefully considering its implications.
Purported has a number of implied meanings and near-synonyms including "alleged", "putatitive", "specious", "assumed" and "pretended".
"Purported" could mean that they have never seen this document and therefore cast doubt on its existence.
Or, as you say, it could indicate that they challenge its validity.

[Sakhmet2]

But - as others have stated - I find it hard to believe if this all is really so black and white as stated here. This is not, a black and white world Sure, I believe it will be more black then white, I'm not trying to defend Ed here, and Chad,Chad and Pat may be right with everything. But if Ed was really the exact asshole as described here, we would at least sensed a little of it in his persona, and we haven't. We sure saw him acting strange at times (stories I heard from back stage visits) and he didn't hang out last few years with the 3, but I can't fully believe it's as black as white as you might think it is. The fact Ed refuses to respond in any way so far makes him even more guilty for many, I understand, but let's appreciate the beauty of grey until we know at least ANYTHING from his side.

Precisely my feelings.

[FishOutaWater]

I know that lawyers don't use any word without very carefully considering its implications.
Purported has a number of implied meanings and near-synonyms including "alleged", "putatitive", "specious", "assumed" and "pretended".
"Purported" could mean that they have never seen this document and therefore cast doubt on its existence.
Or, as you say, it could indicate that they challenge its validity.

Read the entire paragraph 32. The "purported" FVI contract with Mucho Loco had FVI (Ed's company) and Black Coffee as parties to it, and Ed signed the contract on behalf of Black Coffee and FVI. Paragraphs 8 through 11 state that Chad, Chad, Pat and Ed are each 25% shareholders and directors and officers of Black Coffee. Chad stated in his FOL email that Black Coffee is a majority rule corporation. Ed was 1 of 4 officers and directors and owns 25%. Yet he "PURPORTED" to execute the FVI contract with Mucho Loco on behalf of Black Coffee without the other 3 having notice. I don't know that he had the authority to execute that contract on behalf of Black Coffee. Thus, there is an issue as to whether Ed's exucution on behalf of Black Coffee was valid and enforceable and binding upon Black Coffee. Thus, it is a "purported" contract because Black Coffee may not have validly and effectively signed the contract. I'm pretty sure that your Webster Dictionary explanation of the use of the word "purported" is not correct. It seems pretty clear that they know that there was a contract. It seems that they have a copy of it, as they know the details of it and Chad has said that they discovered it. I think that the lawyers do not want to concede the validity of the contract and/or whether it is binding and enforceable (at least as to Black Coffee).

[OutToDry]

This makes sense and is in line with what I read and what we heard regarding Black Coffee.

By the way, mine needs warming.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 16 2010, 8:18 am

[Sonic Tonic]

Holy shit, here you go again with the divorse issue. I have been through a divorse, after 10 years of relationship, stop thinking you are the only one god damn it. In the end usually there is one side to leave it all behind and another side to be neglected, left and forgotten. So it does really remind of some parts,. but not the hole thing.

Hahah, finally someone told him to stfu about it.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Holy shit, here you go again with the divorse issue. I have been through a divorse, after 10 years of relationship, stop thinking you are the only one god damn it. In the end usually there is one side to leave it all behind and another side to be neglected, left and forgotten. So it does really remind of some parts,. but not the hole thing.

THANK YOU.