MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[HubbaBubba]

Not true Ali.

We'd have to see ALL the documents entered by slash and duff. And that's only if the name issue was being contested.

The point being made is that these sections could have just been cherry-picked from a document that in turn has been cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of calling slash and duff liars.

Does that sound fair to you?

Page 3 of this copy of Slash and Duff's lawsuit vs. Axl references the MOA MSL attached.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Under the section titled, "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION"

"On, around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" ("Agreement"). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"".

"Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership"

Does anyone still want to dispute that this MOA was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff themselves?

Ali

Weren't they on tour in early September?

[cooker]

Arguing over something that happened decades ago is so fun. Does anyone really care?

[ARBeast]

Wahhhh wahhhh proof put in front of peoples faces and if they don't like it, then they whine.

It's proof to you.

And I have an email from a nigerian guy that wants to transfer you some money.

The proof is that Slash and Duff have both lied in their books. No person is going to go out of their way to fake a contract and signatures. If you have half a brain, after seeing the contract and signatures you know it's not BS. Another thing would be why not trust MSL? Has he lied before? I'd like to see one example.

Agreed. A lot of people around here don't trust MSL, and a lot of it is for dumb reasons. MSL promises leaks and other information he claims he knows about, and a lot of it he backs up and follows through on. Some of it he's been promising and never backed up, likely for good reason.

He swored Blood in the water would be leaked, then it was leaked.

Complaints, Complaints, Complains.

Now I know why Beta/Team Brazil keep so quiet.

Team Cansuela and the rest of Brazil keep quiet because they're not allowed to release or say anything until Axl is. Axl doesn't want to release or say anything.

A 3 hour meeting to let the fans know they will soon have information? There is no justification for how ridiculous that was.And embarressing on their part.

[jmapelian]

Slash doesn't eventhink he dodnt do anything wrong - but to sayhe hasntbeen succesful is to deny reality - as successful as his time in gnr? No - but waymore succesful than axls gnr

[Sigh]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

And, apparently, MSL has obtained some pages of a September or October, 1992 contract between Slash and Duff and Axl Rose. Okay. And that might be the only such contract that existed beyond that date.

Then again, it may not. I provided some examples of why there might be additional contracts, or addenda to the 1992 contract, such as lack of consideration or the issue of allowing others to have outside counsel review the proposed contract (and cited the Adler lawsuit as an example of why GnR would be sensitive to such issues).

What I would suggest to you, or to anyone commenting on it, is to refrain from calling someone a liar without all of the facts. Such could be construed as defamatory, even to public figures. You don't know if Duff made up the existence of a July 5, 1993 contract, signed while on tour, in Spain, presented by Doug Goldstein, followed up by an angry conversation the next day. He may have. That's a very specific story he told, though, and I suspect that such a contract, or addendum to a contract, does in fact exist. I suspect that because it seems implausible to me that Duff would make up such a fabrication out of whole cloth. An invented contract on such a specific date, location, presentation, etc. The notion that he just made all of that up and published it in his autobiography seems hard to believe.

Then again, he may have made it all up. But I wouldn't go around claiming he was a liar just because a previous contract was signed. The previous contract really proves nothing about whether a subsequent contract or addendum exists.

Now, you say it proves that Duff could not have been blindsided in July, 1993. Maybe, but even that is tenuous at best. Did someone object to the September/October 1992 agreement, due to a lack of consideration, or lack of capacity, or lack of opportunity to have it reviewed by independent counsel? Had the September/October 1992 contract been deemed void, or voidable, or had certain portions of it been deemed void or voidable? Was there a need to clarify some of the language in the 1992 contract?

It appears you have staked out the position that Duff and Slash have lied about Axl, or Doug Goldstein (who may have been acting without sanction from Axl) presenting them a contract before a show with the implied threat that if they did not sign, Axl would not perform. They may have, but I'd be careful if I were you in saying so publicly. Because you just don't have all the facts, and there is really no way for you to get them.

That applies to anyone else who wasn't in Spain on July 5, 1993, before the GnR show on that date.

No, I understand. You seem to be intent on creating a scenario where the documentation MSL provided images of somehow does not undermine Slash and Duff's story.

The fact of the matter is that this MOA being entered into evidence in 2004 by Slash and Duff in their lawsuit against Axl completely undermines any notion that this MOA was deemed void or voidable. So, no, my claim is not tenuous at best.

And, no, I've not staked out the position that Duff and Slash lied. I've staked out the position that they may be mistaken due to any one of a number of reasons, be it a memory completely eradicated by drug and alcohol use, the altering or shifting of memories due to the passage or time, or, perhaps, a deliberate perpetuation of a mistruth (lying). I don't know what would've actually led to this story being perpetuated, nor am I claiming to know.

Ali

No, you don't understand.

I'm not intent on creating any scenario. I don't know what happened. I was giving a warning to you, or to anyone, that making a factual assertion that Duff or Slash lied about something shouldn't be done without all of the facts. Because it could be defamatory.

You, for example, have no idea if there was a July 5, 1993 contract. Neither does MSL. So to publicly call Duff a liar for making the claim is dangerous, because you don't know if the claim is true or not. The existence of a contract in 1992 doesn't mean anything as it relates to the claim of a July, 1993 contract.

As the complaint I linked makes clear, Slash and Duff were not seeking to void or make voidable any part of the 1992 agreement. They were seeking to enforce it, asserting the claim that the 1992 partnership was viable even after Axl left said partnership, even if he took the name Guns N Roses, and that they had rights to license songs which were created pursuant to that 1992 contract (as well as other allegations contained in the complaint). Once again, they made no claim in the 2004 lawsuit that Axl did not own the name. To the contrary, they acknowledge it in the Complaint. Nor do they claim that they signed it over to him under duress. They may have done so, or they may have thought they had done so, and simply not cared at that point to pursue the issue.

But none of that has anything to do with the existence of a July, 1993 contract, or the circumstances in which it was presented to Duff and Slash, or whether any such contract exists.

You obviously want MSL's claim that Duff and Slash lied about the circumstances, the timing, the everything of when they signed over the name. And they may have. But, they may not have. I'm suggesting that you refrain from making any such factual assertions. Because you just don't know.

[Ali]

Not true Ali.

We'd have to see ALL the documents entered by slash and duff. And that's only if the name issue was being contested.

The point being made is that these sections could have just been cherry-picked from a document that in turn has been cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of calling slash and duff liars.

Does that sound fair to you?

Page 3 of this copy of Slash and Duff's lawsuit vs. Axl references the MOA MSL attached.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Under the section titled, "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION"

"On, around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" ("Agreement"). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"".

"Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership"

Does anyone still want to dispute that this MOA was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff themselves?

Ali

Weren't they on tour in early September?

Note that that is on OR AROUND September 1, 1992. The lawsuit itself does not give a specific date.

Also note that the lawsuit in no way, shape or form implies that the MOA/partnership agreement was signed under duress. In fact, it is mentioned as given fact common to all the causes of action subsequently listed in the lawsuit.

Ali

[Rauschen]

Lets just say the document that MSL recovered is the truth and the full story behind the name issue. Maybe 10-15 years ago this would have been pretty damning for duff and slash. But today? No one cares!! It doesn't change how the fans about the old band. It doesn't change the circus that is new GNR. The lack of new music and the shape Axl's voice is in, the truth doesn't magically change those things. Chidem was a let down for more people than those that love it. Don't give me that bs about the media and slash destroying any chance for it to be accepted. Axl destroyed it himself. Druggies are liars, anyone with a brain and a convo with canter know that they probably lied. WHO FUCKING CARES!!

[Ali]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

And, apparently, MSL has obtained some pages of a September or October, 1992 contract between Slash and Duff and Axl Rose. Okay. And that might be the only such contract that existed beyond that date.

Then again, it may not. I provided some examples of why there might be additional contracts, or addenda to the 1992 contract, such as lack of consideration or the issue of allowing others to have outside counsel review the proposed contract (and cited the Adler lawsuit as an example of why GnR would be sensitive to such issues).

What I would suggest to you, or to anyone commenting on it, is to refrain from calling someone a liar without all of the facts. Such could be construed as defamatory, even to public figures. You don't know if Duff made up the existence of a July 5, 1993 contract, signed while on tour, in Spain, presented by Doug Goldstein, followed up by an angry conversation the next day. He may have. That's a very specific story he told, though, and I suspect that such a contract, or addendum to a contract, does in fact exist. I suspect that because it seems implausible to me that Duff would make up such a fabrication out of whole cloth. An invented contract on such a specific date, location, presentation, etc. The notion that he just made all of that up and published it in his autobiography seems hard to believe.

Then again, he may have made it all up. But I wouldn't go around claiming he was a liar just because a previous contract was signed. The previous contract really proves nothing about whether a subsequent contract or addendum exists.

Now, you say it proves that Duff could not have been blindsided in July, 1993. Maybe, but even that is tenuous at best. Did someone object to the September/October 1992 agreement, due to a lack of consideration, or lack of capacity, or lack of opportunity to have it reviewed by independent counsel? Had the September/October 1992 contract been deemed void, or voidable, or had certain portions of it been deemed void or voidable? Was there a need to clarify some of the language in the 1992 contract?

It appears you have staked out the position that Duff and Slash have lied about Axl, or Doug Goldstein (who may have been acting without sanction from Axl) presenting them a contract before a show with the implied threat that if they did not sign, Axl would not perform. They may have, but I'd be careful if I were you in saying so publicly. Because you just don't have all the facts, and there is really no way for you to get them.

That applies to anyone else who wasn't in Spain on July 5, 1993, before the GnR show on that date.

No, I understand. You seem to be intent on creating a scenario where the documentation MSL provided images of somehow does not undermine Slash and Duff's story.

The fact of the matter is that this MOA being entered into evidence in 2004 by Slash and Duff in their lawsuit against Axl completely undermines any notion that this MOA was deemed void or voidable. So, no, my claim is not tenuous at best.

And, no, I've not staked out the position that Duff and Slash lied. I've staked out the position that they may be mistaken due to any one of a number of reasons, be it a memory completely eradicated by drug and alcohol use, the altering or shifting of memories due to the passage or time, or, perhaps, a deliberate perpetuation of a mistruth (lying). I don't know what would've actually led to this story being perpetuated, nor am I claiming to know.

Ali

No, you don't understand.

I'm not intent on creating any scenario. I don't know what happened. I was giving a warning to you, or to anyone, that making a factual assertion that Duff or Slash lied about something shouldn't be done without all of the facts. Because it could be defamatory.

You, for example, have no idea if there was a July 5, 1993 contract. Neither does MSL. So to publicly call Duff a liar for making the claim is dangerous, because you don't know if the claim is true or not. The existence of a contract in 1992 doesn't mean anything as it relates to the claim of a July, 1993 contract.

As the complaint I linked makes clear, Slash and Duff were not seeking to void or make voidable any part of the 1992 agreement. They were seeking to enforce it, asserting the claim that the 1992 partnership was viable even after Axl left said partnership, even if he took the name Guns N Roses, and that they had rights to license songs which were created pursuant to that 1992 contract (as well as other allegations contained in the complaint). Once again, they made no claim in the 2004 lawsuit that Axl did not own the name. To the contrary, they acknowledge it in the Complaint. Nor do they claim that they signed it over to him under duress. They may have done so, or they may have thought they had done so, and simply not cared at that point to pursue the issue.

But none of that has anything to do with the existence of a July, 1993 contract, or the circumstances in which it was presented to Duff and Slash, or whether any such contract exists.

You obviously want MSL's claim that Duff and Slash lied about the circumstances, the timing, the everything of when they signed over the name. And they may have. But, they may not have. I'm suggesting that you refrain from making any such factual assertions. Because you just don't know.

If there was a revised "contract" in 1993, Slash and Duff would've entered that into evidence in 2004, not the partnership agreement from 1992. So, any argument of a July 1993 contract is shaky, to say the least.

But, otherwise, I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying they lied because I don't know. I do believe they may be mistaken in their memories.

Ali

[ARBeast]

Someone has lost all fuckin' perspective.

One person? Lol there's a few "fans" in here who have lost perspective as well as basic logic a long time ago...

Like the ones who think Slash did nothing wrong and continued to be successful after leaving Axl's band

Slash has had success, but nothing remotely close to what he did with GNR. No doubt in my mind if Axl wanted to have just as much success, he could have. He's had all the tools over the years, sometimes in different forms i.e. managers, promoters, producers, etc. All kinds of people who could have helped. I've always seen Slash himself as more of a brand name than I ever saw nuGuns. I just believe that Axl knew carrying the GNR name, he was going to have to have an explosive comeback that people would see, and then debate themselves on nuGuns rivaling the old. He absolutely wanted to reach a level that in the end the new band never achieved, or likely ever will. I'm not saying he believed chinese would sell a hundred million records, I just think he wanted people to hear the bands new music and capture a feeling that could be contrasted to the old. In the end, again, it failed. Also, the music scene changed, and the ways of doing things changed. Music is constantly evolving whether people like it or not, so ultimately, Axl single handedly missed the boat. But, that could be a discussion for another time...

But anyways, not arguing your point. I actually concur. However, there isn't an argument for mine. Unless you were trying to prove me as solely pure Slash, then that just backfired on your part...

Slash doesn't eventhink he dodnt do anything wrong - but to sayhe hasntbeen succesful is to deny reality - as successful as his time in gnr? No - but waymore succesful than axls gnr

Which was my point. Axl has to do things on his terms- and it backfired. Slash was more willing to listen, but he never has recreated the success he had with GNR. I don't believe any guy wil again.

When it's your time in the sun, it's your time in the sun. And you should take advantage of it. Even if the band reunited, it's not like they'd start releasing hits like they did when they first came out. But it'd be great nostalgia for the fans. That's the lesson to be had here- when it's your time to win, go all out and win.

[Sigh]

Not true Ali.

We'd have to see ALL the documents entered by slash and duff. And that's only if the name issue was being contested.

The point being made is that these sections could have just been cherry-picked from a document that in turn has been cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of calling slash and duff liars.

Does that sound fair to you?

Page 3 of this copy of Slash and Duff's lawsuit vs. Axl references the MOA MSL attached.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Under the section titled, "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION"

"On, around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" ("Agreement"). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"".

"Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership"

Does anyone still want to dispute that this MOA was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff themselves?

Ali

Weren't they on tour in early September?

Note that that is on OR AROUND September 1, 1992. The lawsuit itself does not give a specific date.

Also note that the lawsuit in no way, shape or form implies that the MOA/partnership agreement was signed under duress. In fact, it is mentioned as given fact common to all the causes of action subsequently listed in the lawsuit.

Ali

And you keep ignoring that the 2004 lawsuit specifically states that Rose owns the rights to the name. Slash and Duff were not contesting it. Now, you may take that as evidence that they did not consider their signing over the rights to the name to be under duress, and that their claims to the contrary are lies.

Or, it may be that they simply didn't care in 2004 to pursue the issue.

Did the 1992 agreement allow Axl to own the name only if he was terminated from the partnership? Or did he get to keep the name if he voluntarily left the partnership? Was that something that was spelled out in the 1992 agreement, or was there something after the 1992 agreement which clarified that point? Maybe a 1993 agreement?

[HubbaBubba]

It's still a little weird.

Why would they say 'at or around sept 1st' when they had a dated document in their hands showing Oct 15/21 exactly? It's not even close.

Makes you think the agreement may have really been hammered out at least a month before they signed this document - while they were on tour....

[jmapelian]

I ddon't think axl was anywherenear as succesful ashe wanted the new gunns to be - nor do I thin he's capable --look at what a mess itwas to get CD out, and then when it was released, it wasall a clusterfuck as per axl's rantswhen e came on here

[Ali]

It's still a little weird.

Why would they say 'at or around sept 1st' when they had a dated document in their hands showing Oct 15/21 exactly? It's not even close.

Makes you think the agreement may have really been hammered out at least a month before they signed this document - while they were on tour....

Yes, it's possible there may have been some discussion of the details of the agreement prior to the agreement itself being signed. But, according to the dates next to Slash and Duff's signatures, they did not sign it while on tour.

Ali

[Sigh]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

And, apparently, MSL has obtained some pages of a September or October, 1992 contract between Slash and Duff and Axl Rose. Okay. And that might be the only such contract that existed beyond that date.

Then again, it may not. I provided some examples of why there might be additional contracts, or addenda to the 1992 contract, such as lack of consideration or the issue of allowing others to have outside counsel review the proposed contract (and cited the Adler lawsuit as an example of why GnR would be sensitive to such issues).

What I would suggest to you, or to anyone commenting on it, is to refrain from calling someone a liar without all of the facts. Such could be construed as defamatory, even to public figures. You don't know if Duff made up the existence of a July 5, 1993 contract, signed while on tour, in Spain, presented by Doug Goldstein, followed up by an angry conversation the next day. He may have. That's a very specific story he told, though, and I suspect that such a contract, or addendum to a contract, does in fact exist. I suspect that because it seems implausible to me that Duff would make up such a fabrication out of whole cloth. An invented contract on such a specific date, location, presentation, etc. The notion that he just made all of that up and published it in his autobiography seems hard to believe.

Then again, he may have made it all up. But I wouldn't go around claiming he was a liar just because a previous contract was signed. The previous contract really proves nothing about whether a subsequent contract or addendum exists.

Now, you say it proves that Duff could not have been blindsided in July, 1993. Maybe, but even that is tenuous at best. Did someone object to the September/October 1992 agreement, due to a lack of consideration, or lack of capacity, or lack of opportunity to have it reviewed by independent counsel? Had the September/October 1992 contract been deemed void, or voidable, or had certain portions of it been deemed void or voidable? Was there a need to clarify some of the language in the 1992 contract?

It appears you have staked out the position that Duff and Slash have lied about Axl, or Doug Goldstein (who may have been acting without sanction from Axl) presenting them a contract before a show with the implied threat that if they did not sign, Axl would not perform. They may have, but I'd be careful if I were you in saying so publicly. Because you just don't have all the facts, and there is really no way for you to get them.

That applies to anyone else who wasn't in Spain on July 5, 1993, before the GnR show on that date.

No, I understand. You seem to be intent on creating a scenario where the documentation MSL provided images of somehow does not undermine Slash and Duff's story.

The fact of the matter is that this MOA being entered into evidence in 2004 by Slash and Duff in their lawsuit against Axl completely undermines any notion that this MOA was deemed void or voidable. So, no, my claim is not tenuous at best.

And, no, I've not staked out the position that Duff and Slash lied. I've staked out the position that they may be mistaken due to any one of a number of reasons, be it a memory completely eradicated by drug and alcohol use, the altering or shifting of memories due to the passage or time, or, perhaps, a deliberate perpetuation of a mistruth (lying). I don't know what would've actually led to this story being perpetuated, nor am I claiming to know.

Ali

No, you don't understand.

I'm not intent on creating any scenario. I don't know what happened. I was giving a warning to you, or to anyone, that making a factual assertion that Duff or Slash lied about something shouldn't be done without all of the facts. Because it could be defamatory.

You, for example, have no idea if there was a July 5, 1993 contract. Neither does MSL. So to publicly call Duff a liar for making the claim is dangerous, because you don't know if the claim is true or not. The existence of a contract in 1992 doesn't mean anything as it relates to the claim of a July, 1993 contract.

As the complaint I linked makes clear, Slash and Duff were not seeking to void or make voidable any part of the 1992 agreement. They were seeking to enforce it, asserting the claim that the 1992 partnership was viable even after Axl left said partnership, even if he took the name Guns N Roses, and that they had rights to license songs which were created pursuant to that 1992 contract (as well as other allegations contained in the complaint). Once again, they made no claim in the 2004 lawsuit that Axl did not own the name. To the contrary, they acknowledge it in the Complaint. Nor do they claim that they signed it over to him under duress. They may have done so, or they may have thought they had done so, and simply not cared at that point to pursue the issue.

But none of that has anything to do with the existence of a July, 1993 contract, or the circumstances in which it was presented to Duff and Slash, or whether any such contract exists.

You obviously want MSL's claim that Duff and Slash lied about the circumstances, the timing, the everything of when they signed over the name. And they may have. But, they may not have. I'm suggesting that you refrain from making any such factual assertions. Because you just don't know.

If there was a revised "contract" in 1993, Slash and Duff would've entered that into evidence in 2004, not the partnership agreement from 1992. So, any argument of a July 1993 contract is shaky, to say the least.

But, otherwise, I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying they lied because I don't know. I do believe they may be mistaken in their memories.

Ali

Why would they have filed the 1993 agreement? What was the 1993 agreement? A full revision of the 1992 agreement? Simply an addendum to the 1992 agreement, specifically addressing something with the name? I just posted the question as to whether the 1992 agreement clarifies what happens to the name if Axl quits rather than is "terminated".

I hope you are starting to see where this is going. It appears that you do.

[Ali]

Not true Ali.

We'd have to see ALL the documents entered by slash and duff. And that's only if the name issue was being contested.

The point being made is that these sections could have just been cherry-picked from a document that in turn has been cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of calling slash and duff liars.

Does that sound fair to you?

Page 3 of this copy of Slash and Duff's lawsuit vs. Axl references the MOA MSL attached.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Under the section titled, "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION"

"On, around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" ("Agreement"). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"".

"Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership"

Does anyone still want to dispute that this MOA was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff themselves?

Ali

Weren't they on tour in early September?

Note that that is on OR AROUND September 1, 1992. The lawsuit itself does not give a specific date.

Also note that the lawsuit in no way, shape or form implies that the MOA/partnership agreement was signed under duress. In fact, it is mentioned as given fact common to all the causes of action subsequently listed in the lawsuit.

Ali

And you keep ignoring that the 2004 lawsuit specifically states that Rose owns the rights to the name. Slash and Duff were not contesting it. Now, you may take that as evidence that they did not consider their signing over the rights to the name to be under duress, and that their claims to the contrary are lies.

Or, it may be that they simply didn't care in 2004 to pursue the issue.

Did the 1992 agreement allow Axl to own the name only if he was terminated from the partnership? Or did he get to keep the name if he voluntarily left the partnership? Was that something that was spelled out in the 1992 agreement, or was there something after the 1992 agreement which clarified that point? Maybe a 1993 agreement?

How am I ignoring it when I posted a link to the lawsuit document itself and even typed out parts of the "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION" section?

I take the fact that the dates next to Slash and Duff's signatures in the MOA are on dates when GN'R was not on tour as evidence that they are mistaken in their claims that they signed the agreement giving Axl the rights to the band name while on tour and under duress.

It's not that they didn't care to pursue the issue in 2004. Based on my previous statement, I would say there was no issue to pursue to begin with. Even if there was, for the sake of argument, they wouldn't be able to pursue as late as 2004 anyway.

The lawsuit states very clearly, citing the 1992 MOA, the terms of how Axl would get to keep the name. There is zero indication of a 1993 agreement. As I said, if there was a later agreement, the 2004 lawsuit would not have cited the 1992 agreement. IMO to suggest otherwise makes no sense whatsoever. The 1992 MOA was cited as evidence by Slash and Duff because it was still valid in 2004.

Ali

[ITG]

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

Actually it is you that is confused. It's called a partnership agreement for a reason. The parties are not making any transaction. Neither is hiring the other. Neither is buying or selling anything. They're agreeing how they're going to split future revenue, what happens if someone leaves, etc. So you keep harping on lack of consideration, but it's actually you that has a lack of understanding.

If we draw up a contract that states I will buy your radish for $0, it may be deemed unenforceable as I did not offer anything in exchange for your radish.

If we draw up a partnership agreement that states we will work together to grow radishes and that if I leave I get to keep the farming equipment, I'm not obligated to offer anything specific in exchange for the farming equipment. The entire point of the agreement is to establish how our joint assets will be divided. Unless one partner is not being compensated in any way whatsoever, I don't see how your lack of consideration claim would have any merit. Considering the agreement bumped Slash's cut of revenue up to 33 1/3 and Duff's up to 30 1/3, I'd say all involved received consideration.

As for the other person confused by the September 1 date, the 1992 partnership agreement established what to do with revenue from 9/1 onward, but was not signed until October.

Post the rest of the contract.

Also everything said by the guy you are quoting is technically true. You have no grounds really to call him confused.

And don't put your watermark emblem on it either. No one really wants to know you exist as much as you do.

[Sigh]

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

Actually it is you that is confused. It's called a partnership agreement for a reason. The parties are not making any transaction. Neither is hiring the other. Neither is buying or selling anything. They're agreeing how they're going to split future revenue, what happens if someone leaves, etc. So you keep harping on lack of consideration, but it's actually you that has a lack of understanding.

If we draw up a contract that states I will buy your radish for $0, it may be deemed unenforceable as I did not offer anything in exchange for your radish.

If we draw up a partnership agreement that states we will work together to grow radishes and that if I leave I get to keep the farming equipment, I'm not obligated to offer anything specific in exchange for the farming equipment. The entire point of the agreement is to establish how our joint assets will be divided. Unless one partner is not being compensated in any way whatsoever, I don't see how your lack of consideration claim would have any merit. Considering the agreement bumped Slash's cut of revenue up to 33 1/3 and Duff's up to 30 1/3, I'd say all involved received consideration.

As for the other person confused by the September 1 date, the 1992 partnership agreement established what to do with revenue from 9/1 onward, but was not signed until October.

No, I'm right. A contract is a contract is a contract. A partnership agreement is also a contract. In your scenario, the parties may agree from the beginning of the partnership that you will get to keep the farming equipment. Then again, if your partner receives no consideration for your receiving the farming equipment, then that might void or make voidable either the entire agreement, or just that provision.

But it would still be a contract.

If Guns N Roses had a partnership agreement with Axl/Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven, and it said nothing about Axl owning the name, and then a new one was entered into in 1992, and Axl suddenly owned the name, then consideration for same would of course be an issue. And it may very well be that the failure to provide any consideration was a reason for an addendum or a new agreement in 1993. Or it could be that the 1992 agreement didn't clarify the distinction between termination and voluntarily leaving. Or any number of other issues which needed clarification.

None of which really matters when it comes to your factual assertion that Duff lied about being presented with a contract in July 1993 before the Guns N Roses show in Barcelona. I suspect you were not there, and so you have no knowledge of what, if anything, happened on that date and time.

Of course, one way to clarify some of these issues, and maybe give you some peace of mind about your factual assertions vis a vis Duff and Slash, would be to see the entire 1992 agreement. But apparently it isn't available.

But I do hope you will stop citing to the 2004 lawsuit as some evidence as to the validity of your factual assertions. Once again, Slash and Duff do not make any claims that they own the name, or signed it over under duress. And neither you nor I will know their motivation for not making it an issue in their 2004 lawsuit.

I suspect by that point in time they didn't care and had been advised that the statute of limitation for any such claim expired long ago.

By the way, the contract you provided seems cut and pasted, and is unsigned by Rose. When did Rose sign the contract, and has it been tampered with?

[ITG]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

This kind of the opposite of what you are saying. I'm going to be honest and assume you didn't know what consideration in a contract was until 5 minutes ago and just started reading a textbook definition you found on-line.

MSL doesn't appear to have known what he was talking about but tried his very best to sound like he did, even sounding like a proselytizing Grandpa tryin' to give us an education.

Way to try to save face man.

[Kush]

I honestly hope that some major news website gets this, so the rest of the World gets to know the truth.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introducing the Axl Rose Derrrrrrrrrrrfense force.

[Ali]

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

Actually it is you that is confused. It's called a partnership agreement for a reason. The parties are not making any transaction. Neither is hiring the other. Neither is buying or selling anything. They're agreeing how they're going to split future revenue, what happens if someone leaves, etc. So you keep harping on lack of consideration, but it's actually you that has a lack of understanding.

If we draw up a contract that states I will buy your radish for $0, it may be deemed unenforceable as I did not offer anything in exchange for your radish.

If we draw up a partnership agreement that states we will work together to grow radishes and that if I leave I get to keep the farming equipment, I'm not obligated to offer anything specific in exchange for the farming equipment. The entire point of the agreement is to establish how our joint assets will be divided. Unless one partner is not being compensated in any way whatsoever, I don't see how your lack of consideration claim would have any merit. Considering the agreement bumped Slash's cut of revenue up to 33 1/3 and Duff's up to 30 1/3, I'd say all involved received consideration.

As for the other person confused by the September 1 date, the 1992 partnership agreement established what to do with revenue from 9/1 onward, but was not signed until October.

No, I'm right. A contract is a contract is a contract. A partnership agreement is also a contract. In your scenario, the parties may agree from the beginning of the partnership that you will get to keep the farming equipment. Then again, if your partner receives no consideration for your receiving the farming equipment, then that might void or make voidable either the entire agreement, or just that provision.

But it would still be a contract.

If Guns N Roses had a partnership agreement with Axl/Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven, and it said nothing about Axl owning the name, and then a new one was entered into in 1992, and Axl suddenly owned the name, then consideration for same would of course be an issue. And it may very well be that the failure to provide any consideration was a reason for an addendum or a new agreement in 1993. Or it could be that the 1992 agreement didn't clarify the distinction between termination and voluntarily leaving. Or any number of other issues which needed clarification.

None of which really matters when it comes to your factual assertion that Duff lied about being presented with a contract in July 1993 before the Guns N Roses show in Barcelona. I suspect you were not there, and so you have no knowledge of what, if anything, happened on that date and time.

Of course, one way to clarify some of these issues, and maybe give you some peace of mind about your factual assertions vis a vis Duff and Slash, would be to see the entire 1992 agreement. But apparently it isn't available.

But I do hope you will stop citing to the 2004 lawsuit as some evidence as to the validity of your factual assertions. Once again, Slash and Duff do not make any claims that they own the name, or signed it over under duress. And neither you nor I will know their motivation for not making it an issue in their 2004 lawsuit.

I suspect by that point in time they didn't care and had been advised that the statute of limitation for any such claim expired long ago.

By the way, the contract you provided seems cut and pasted, and is unsigned by Rose. When did Rose sign the contract, and has it been tampered with?

I think it's quite simple. The issue in dispute is how and when the agreement assigning Axl ownership of the band name if he voluntarily left or was expelled from the Original GN'R partnership.

Axl getting the rights to the band name if he voluntarily left or was expelled from the Original GN'R partnership is stated in the 1992 MOA and later in the 2004 lawsuit. That was clarified in 1992. The MOA was signed by Slash and Duff in Oct. 1992, when the band was not on tour, so the scenario that has been perpetuated of being under duress because of a show later that night could not be accurate. Whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to deceive and perpetuate a falsehood, or just a mistake for whatever reason, is impossible to know.

If there was a 1993 or later agreement that addressed the issue of name ownership, it would have been what Slash and Duff entered into evidence in 2004, not the 1992 MOA. That was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff because it was still valid.

Again, IMO, this is fairly straightforward.

Ali

[Sigh]

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

Actually it is you that is confused. It's called a partnership agreement for a reason. The parties are not making any transaction. Neither is hiring the other. Neither is buying or selling anything. They're agreeing how they're going to split future revenue, what happens if someone leaves, etc. So you keep harping on lack of consideration, but it's actually you that has a lack of understanding.

If we draw up a contract that states I will buy your radish for $0, it may be deemed unenforceable as I did not offer anything in exchange for your radish.

If we draw up a partnership agreement that states we will work together to grow radishes and that if I leave I get to keep the farming equipment, I'm not obligated to offer anything specific in exchange for the farming equipment. The entire point of the agreement is to establish how our joint assets will be divided. Unless one partner is not being compensated in any way whatsoever, I don't see how your lack of consideration claim would have any merit. Considering the agreement bumped Slash's cut of revenue up to 33 1/3 and Duff's up to 30 1/3, I'd say all involved received consideration.

As for the other person confused by the September 1 date, the 1992 partnership agreement established what to do with revenue from 9/1 onward, but was not signed until October.

No, I'm right. A contract is a contract is a contract. A partnership agreement is also a contract. In your scenario, the parties may agree from the beginning of the partnership that you will get to keep the farming equipment. Then again, if your partner receives no consideration for your receiving the farming equipment, then that might void or make voidable either the entire agreement, or just that provision.

But it would still be a contract.

If Guns N Roses had a partnership agreement with Axl/Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven, and it said nothing about Axl owning the name, and then a new one was entered into in 1992, and Axl suddenly owned the name, then consideration for same would of course be an issue. And it may very well be that the failure to provide any consideration was a reason for an addendum or a new agreement in 1993. Or it could be that the 1992 agreement didn't clarify the distinction between termination and voluntarily leaving. Or any number of other issues which needed clarification.

None of which really matters when it comes to your factual assertion that Duff lied about being presented with a contract in July 1993 before the Guns N Roses show in Barcelona. I suspect you were not there, and so you have no knowledge of what, if anything, happened on that date and time.

Of course, one way to clarify some of these issues, and maybe give you some peace of mind about your factual assertions vis a vis Duff and Slash, would be to see the entire 1992 agreement. But apparently it isn't available.

But I do hope you will stop citing to the 2004 lawsuit as some evidence as to the validity of your factual assertions. Once again, Slash and Duff do not make any claims that they own the name, or signed it over under duress. And neither you nor I will know their motivation for not making it an issue in their 2004 lawsuit.

I suspect by that point in time they didn't care and had been advised that the statute of limitation for any such claim expired long ago.

By the way, the contract you provided seems cut and pasted, and is unsigned by Rose. When did Rose sign the contract, and has it been tampered with?

I think it's quite simple. The issue in dispute is how and when the agreement assigning Axl ownership of the band name if he voluntarily left or was expelled from the Original GN'R partnership.

Axl getting the rights to the band name if he voluntarily left or was expelled from the Original GN'R partnership is stated in the 1992 MOA and later in the 2004 lawsuit. That was clarified in 1992. The MOA was signed by Slash and Duff in Oct. 1992, when the band was not on tour, so the scenario that has been perpetuated of being under duress because of a show later that night could not be accurate. Whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to deceive and perpetuate a falsehood, or just a mistake for whatever reason, is impossible to know.

If there was a 1993 or later agreement that addressed the issue of name ownership, it would have been what Slash and Duff entered into evidence in 2004, not the 1992 MOA. That was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff because it was still valid.

Again, IMO, this is fairly straightforward.

Ali

Apparently not.

Unless you have access to the entire 1992 agreement, then how do you know that it addresses the distinction between voluntarily leaving and being terminated?

How do you know that there wasn't some other reason for clarification in 1993? You do not, so Duff's statements in his book could be entirely accurate. Yet now you are back to saying that they "could not be accurate". Of course they could. You have no idea. And here I thought you were on the right road.

Once again, and this is getting old, as the complaint in 2004 made no issue of the ownership of the name, why would they bring in a 1993 addendum, or a 1993 revision, as evidence in the lawsuit they filed. The name had nothing to do with the 2004 lawsuit. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a 1993 contract addressing the name. Per Duff, there absolutely was. He gives the date, the location, the terms, who presented it to him, etc. So, once again, YOU DO NOT KNOW if there was a 1993 contract, and the existence of the 2004 lawsuit does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a 1993 contract, and the failure to attach any such 1993 contract to the Complaint does not prove or disprove its existence.

So, while it is all fairly straightforward, it is straightforward in the exact opposite direction you keep claiming.

[williambailey01]

Interesting that Doug Goldstein's version of events seems to largely jive with Duffs. Goldstein as of 2 days ago confirmed that a draft agreement was prepared in Barcelona relinquishing their rights to the name before Axl would take the stage. Although he lays the blame at the feet of John Reese the Tour Manager for delivering the ultimatum.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=13024&p=1

[Sigh]

Interesting that Doug Goldstein's version of events seems to largely jive with Duffs. Goldstein as of 2 days ago confirmed that a draft agreement was prepared in Barcelona relinquishing their rights to the name before Axl would take the stage. Although he lays the blame at the feet of John Reese the Tour Manager for delivering the ultimatum.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=13024&p=1

Yet another reason to not make factual assertions about someone lying when you don't have all the facts. They may have others who are willing to verify their version of events.

[wasted]

Hopefully thwy wrote in their books their idea of what happened. Duff did say that at the time he was paranoid and having panic attacks. Then Doug comes to him and says sign. He assumes if he doesnt bad things may happen. As they happen inexplicably anyway.

But who gives a fuck, bands become institutions and kind of lose something anyway from the Stones to Aerosmith to ACDC. The old guys have the purity and Axl lives with the name.

[dalsh327]

http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-07-13/music/sometimes-the-lion/

It does say "feel free..."

http://www.lauriesoriano.com/contact.html

Edited December 5, 2013 by dalsh327