Sigh

It proves that we really don't know when that specific clause was dated, MSL.

Thank you!

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.

I know because the "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION" section of the 2004 lawsuit restates, very clearly I might add, that Axl would retain the rights to the band name if he voluntary withdrew OR was expelled from the partnership.

Your argument is incredibly weak to the point of having no argument at all. What you're essentially stating that there may have been a revised partnership agreement addressing the issue of ownership of the band name in 1993, but despite that, Slash and Duff presented what would be a outdated, even null and void, version of the partnership agreement from 1992 into evidence in their 2004 lawsuit.

It doesn't make sense in any way, shape or form. It's completely nonsensical.

But, continue to hang onto an argument that is completely devoid of logic.

Ali

Oh, Ali, and here I was thinking you were making progress.

You don't know what the word logic means, as is proven by your post above.

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't know, and so logically, anything you say in which you claim to know may very well be wrong.

For example, you don't know if there is a 1993 contract or addendum, because you were not there and you do not know. You hope there isn't one so that the claims that Slash and Duff lied are proven to be true. But your hopes, and reality, don't necessarily collide on this issue.

Another example. You don't know if the 1992 agreement was subsequently amended, with, say, some typed language which was then presented to Slash and Duff at a point in time later than 1992. Maybe even 1993. July, even. In Barcelona. You hope that isn't the case because you want the factual assertions that Slash and Duff lied to be true. Which they may be. Or they may not be. Either way, you don't know.

You just hope. And since you haven't made the factual assertion that Slash and Duff lied, you're fine to keep defending the one who did make that factual assertion. All that does is put your credibility on the line. No harm there if it turns out you were wrong.

But you're getting more aggressive in your rhetoric, and you don't understand the concept of logic.

for those who didn't click the link:

This is more like it.

Now I am wondering if the portion of the contract with the asterisk was added after the original contract was signed in October, 1992, and was presented to Duff and Slash in, say, July, 1993.

Because, logic dictates that the typed in language was not included at the time the original was signed. After all, if you were going to add that language, you would have just added it to the original document before the document was signed.

Or maybe all of that language was in the original 1992 contract, and there exists a 1993 contract or addendum which also addresses the name.

Good stuff. I sure would like to KNOW what all happened with the partnership agreement. Alas, all I can do is speculate.

To have been there would have been great.

seems to be some confusion here about how legal documents work.

some of you seem to be under the impression that an added section that's been initialed indicates it was something put into the document after it had been originally signed.

that's not how it works. contracts evolve over time during negotiations before putting pen to paper to sign the final agreement. clauses may have been added since the first time the agreement was read, so it's important to have parties acknowledge they are aware of the changes so they don't claim something was snuck into the agreement in between it first being drafted and eventually being signed.

that is why you have the parties initial where the changes took place, so they can't later claim they were unaware of the revisions.

to suggest that somehow these clauses were added after october 21, 1992 shows a tremendous amount of ignorance. not only is that not how contracts work, but slash and duff's lawsuit makes no mention whatsoever of any later agreement. it is complete fiction on the part of snooze to suggest that perhaps these clauses were added later on after execution of the agreement.

also, it's hilarious that i've been given so much shit for not posting all 9 pages as if i'm hiding something that would hurt my argument, yet snooze is given a pass for not posting all 9 pages. believe me, if i was hiding something that would hurt my argument, snooze would be very eager to post it. he doesn't want to post all 9 pages because doing so would only bolster my position.

i haven't posted all 9 pages because i have no interest in smoking gun style document leaks. i posted what was needed for the analysis of my article and don't care to put the inner workings of the old band on display. slash and duff made the signing date fair game by lying publicly about signing over the name backstage before a show under duress.

as axl has insisted, that never happened. axl was telling the truth. those in denial will remain in denial and that is fine. i love you all.

Why would Slash and Duff's lawsuit in 2004 reference a 1993 addendum about the name, when the 2004 lawsuit concedes that Rose has ownership of the name?

It's the question you keep ignoring, but it just doesn't go away.

Maybe you have to hope that there was no July 5, 1993 contract or addendum, because if there is, then you have published a defamatory statement about Slash and Duff.

Unless you happened to be there on July 5, 1993, which I doubt.

So you're claiming expertise in the workings of contracts, meaning that you would obviously be aware that any contract should be considered in its entirety, not in bits and pieces, and yet you're not posting the whole thing.

How is that not taking the piss? Serious question. If you really understand contacts like you claim (and I believe you) then you're talking about both sides of your mouth.

I don't really care either way, just pointing it out that to other people who also understand how contracts work your position is dodgy.

It doesn't matter what the contract says. The focus of my story was when it was signed. I posted the portion in regards to the name simply to show that I did have access to the agreement and wasn't posting a random signature page. If someone wants to track down the agreement and post it, I can't stop them. It's public record. But my article had nothing to do with whether the contract was fair or unfair. It simply had to do with when it was signed and whether Slash and Duff lied about it being signed backstage under duress.

Common sense has always indicated that their story was bullshit, but I figured some people would still be curious to see their actual dated signatures.

But I do think it's hilarious that some of you think somehow I'm hiding something that would contradict my story. Meanwhile, Snooze has tried everything possible to contradict my story, has the full agreement, and yet doesn't post it because he knows doing so would bolster my story. Interesting.

Yours is not a story. It is a statement of fact. You stated that Slash and Duff lied.

And you did so without knowing if they lied or not.

Oh, wait, that's right. You KNOW that Duff did not sign any contract on July 5, 1993. Ostensibly because you were there.

So, is it so difficult to accept they probably lied? They were idiots and Axl should never made them sign it.

What's the big deal here? It doesn't make Axl any better, since he had them sign those papers anyway. The story about how the signing happened, is just a little different. So what? They lied about it, maybe started to believe the story themselves, who knows? But still it doesn't change the fact, that Axl shouldn't had them sign the contract in the first place.

If it was to protect himself, why shouldn't he?!

That's what he says, that doesn't have to be the truth. Just like Slash and Duff's story isn't the truth.

It is well known that Alan Niven suggested the other band members that they should fire Axl. (For the late starts and everything that was going on at the time)

He actually admitted that on his interview. When Doug knew about it he went and told Axl.

If we are to believe MSL, the 1992 contract was the one in which all issues regarding ownership of the name were addressed.

Alan Niven was fired in 1991.

Explain Axl's statement please.

Hubba Bubba & In This Grave -

Slash and Duff's complaint outlines the timeline for the changes to GNR's business arrangements and enters into evidence the documents that changed the business arrangements.

That is why the 1992 partnership agreement and 1995 withdrawal letter (exhibits A & B) are public record.

This supposed mythical contract from 1993 does not exist. Any changes to the '92 agreement would have been mentioned in the lawsuit and entered into evidence. The '95 withdrawal letter also only makes mention of the '92 agreement.

Had GNR's operations been governed in any way by some additional 1993 agreement, it would have been mentioned in Axl's '95 letter and mentioned in Slash and Duff's '04 lawsuit (not to mention entered into evidence with the other exhibits).

The lengths some in this thread have gone to grasp at straws is really quite extraordinary.

What many of you are missing is this:

With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses.

Even though Axl founded the band, named the band, fronted the band and was the primary songwriter, the fucking replacement bassist & guitarist that joined Axl's existing band could have kicked him out of his band and ended up with it.

Why in a million years should Axl have agreed to carry on with Guns once Izzy departs if it meant Slash and Duff could just get rid of him at any point, he'd have no protection whatsoever, and two dudes that joined the band he founded would get to keep the name?

FUCK THAT. You'd have to be CRAZY to put yourself in that situation.

The "mythical" contract of 1993 does not exist? Do tell. Were you there? If not, who told you that it does not exist, and why do you trust them to such a great extent?

While you are at it, please post the entire 1992 agreement and the 1995 letter, if you have it.

And once again explain for me why a 1993 addendum dealing with the name would be necessary to a 2004 lawsuit that had, according to the original complaint, nothing to do with the band name? I would also ask how you know that a 1993 addendum was not provided in discovery in the 2004 lawsuit, but since you know that there is no such contract or addendum, I guess I will have to make due with your response to my earlier request.

Couldn't Izzy have joined with Duff and Slash to oust Axl? Why did Izzy's departure have such a significant impact on who owned the name?

The "replacement" bass guitarist and lead guitarist? Really? The ones who collaborated on all those classic songs, relegated to "replacements" by the Rose sycophants.

Indeed.

Before you go off the deep end about Rose being the "primary" songwriter, you might want to consider the music GnR created when the band was Axl/Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven versus Axl and Huge and Pittman and Finck, etc. Because it very much appears that collaboration with the classic line up was the key to all those great GnR songs. Not "primarily" Rose.

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

Interesting finding. However I´d like to know how those guys from Revolution are able to cantact Goldstein. How do we know for sure they are not making it up? Sorry, I have to ask with so much BS going on everywhere. Don´t get me wrong. I believe what Duff and Slash have said on the matter. I just want to make sure it is a real email from Goldstein

Good point. Cut up contracts. Supposedly copied and pasted emails. All good examples of not flying off the handle and making factual assertions without all the facts.

I don't know. But sorry, it won't be anything past 1993. It just isn't and I don't need everyone to fight me on that. Deep down, you KNOW thats true, and just thought that should be said at the start.

Also, many people are just gonna say the ones they know so it'll never be definitive. There will probably always be a hidden best show that no one knows. Also, everyone has different ideas of best. Inglewood has a great setlist, but not great vocals. Some shows the band is totally on but the setlist is kind of weird.

Does anyone have footage of that long, long show they played at the L.A. Forum in 1991?

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.

http://www.classichitsandoldies.com/v2/2013/11/17/famous-jerry-garcia-guitar-part-of-a-massive-two-day-rock-memorabilia-auction-taking-place-next-month/

Meanwhile, Axl Rose‘s ex-wife, Erin Everly, is selling an assortment of items the Guns N’ Roses singer used to own. These include the couple’s 1990 wedding video and marriage license, personal photographs, clothing, love letters and even a domestic-abuse report.

Visit: http://www.juliensauctions.com/auctions/2013/icons-and-idols-rock/index.html

Update: Axl's sister Amy Bailey has commented on Erin's charity auction:

I agree with Axl's sister. Just low class all the way.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Consideration is actually very important because without it in the contract from both sides, it is just a piece of paper. There must have been something there but until someone posts the rest no one will know. No one really cares at this point. Any journalist could have done the same thing here but it is old news. It would be funny though if Axl's contract turned out to be just a piece of paper though.

It adds dimension, and further discussion and information.

But MSL's point was to discredit Slash and Duff with the dates they signed the contract and the story they told to go with it.

Indeed it was, but does it discredit either Slash or Duff?

Or were subsequent actions taken which verify what they have both claimed? While Slash seems to be fuzzier on the details, Duff is quite specific with his. The exact date, the exact location, the content (at least in part), who presented the contract, his reaction to signing it. All very specific.

MSL has publicly stated that Duff lied about what Duff was very specific about in his book. And that Slash lied (which could be trickier considering Slash's lack of specificity as to the details). But, unless he happened to be there, he really should refrain from any such factual assertions.

Diesel Daisy -

It's not a deal memo. It's the band's partnership agreement as entered into evidence by Slash and Duff during the 2004 lawsuit.

It's the finalized and binding partnership agreement.

At no point during the 2004 lawsuit was it ever alleged that Slash or Duff were made to sign anything backstage before a show.

When in a situation where lying would carry serious legal consequences, suddenly none of Slash and Duff's previous claims were brought up. Strange.

This is all I can find online pertaining to the 2004 lawsuit:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=466336956739730&set=a.466336753406417.105368.156211814418914&type=3&theater

Certainly there could be an amended complaint or even multiple amended complaints, but it doesn't appear from this original complaint that either Duff or Slash were seeking to recover the name. In fact, they specifically state that Rose has the right to the name (see, e.g., the "On the Fifth Cause of Action" section). The lawsuit in essence seeks to enforce the provisions of the 1992 agreement, in that Slash and Duff as the only remaining members had the right to vote on whether or not GnR material created pursuant to the original GnR partnership and the 1992 partnership could be licensed by them, instead of requiring Rose's involvement (and apparent use of a veto power).

So even in the 2004 lawsuit, at least the one I have found, they were not seeking to either use the name or prevent Rose from using the name. They may have regretted doing so, and may have considered their doing so to be under duress, but even if they considered their doing so to be under duress, they apparently didn't care to push the issue.

My understanding of this lawsuit was that they were upset with Rose for continuing to veto attempts to license GnR songs, and also because Rose re-recorded Appetite with the new band and was trying to license those re-recordings instead of the original Appetite recordings.

I don't see where it had anything to do with Rose's use of the Guns N Roses name.

It would be impossible to say if MSL has been advised about making such public factual assertions. I would warn against anyone, including MSL, making such factual assertions. And before this devolves into a lecture about public figures and actual malice, it only makes sense not to call anyone a liar unless one has all of the facts.

I don't know if MSL was around Guns N Roses in 1992 or 1993, or if he was in Spain in July, 1993, and back stage with Duff prior to the concert referenced in Duff's book, but he would need to be before he called him a liar.

Even if he is relying on someone he trusts that no such July 1993 contract exists, it is still MSL who is making the factual assertion. He might have a defense of detrimental reliance, or the ability to third party in the person he relied upon, but why even risk getting to that point?

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.

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.

Is it possible? Before you say no, remember that Axl has had a bitter falling out with every single other person who has ever attempted to manage him.

Only from the grave, meaning Rose will have to haunt them after he dies. Team Brazil will release all the things Rose refuses to release b/c it may enrich Slash, such as the UYI Tour footage.

It would be interesting to see if Rose tries to prevent the release of any such material in his will. I can see that kind of vindictiveness from Rose.

Just tacky. Low brow.

http://www.classichitsandoldies.com/v2/2013/11/17/famous-jerry-garcia-guitar-part-of-a-massive-two-day-rock-memorabilia-auction-taking-place-next-month/

Meanwhile, Axl Roses ex-wife, Erin Everly, is selling an assortment of items the Guns N Roses singer used to own. These include the couples 1990 wedding video and marriage license, personal photographs, clothing, love letters and even a domestic-abuse report.

Visit: http://www.juliensauctions.com/auctions/2013/icons-and-idols-rock/index.html

Just tacky. Low brow.

http://www.classichitsandoldies.com/v2/2013/11/17/famous-jerry-garcia-guitar-part-of-a-massive-two-day-rock-memorabilia-auction-taking-place-next-month/

Meanwhile, Axl Roses ex-wife, Erin Everly, is selling an assortment of items the Guns N Roses singer used to own. These include the couples 1990 wedding video and marriage license, personal photographs, clothing, love letters and even a domestic-abuse report.

Visit: http://www.juliensauctions.com/auctions/2013/icons-and-idols-rock/index.html

Msl says that mygnr damages the band?

Does he not remember the leaked txt from beta? Isn't he the one who leaked unreleased material?

I'm just wondering how many more times MSL is going to repeat his claims about the number of his podcast followers.