Intercourse Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Can you sign a legal document with your nickname only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubbaBubba Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 I wonder why Axl's sig isn't dated? The doc wouldn't be legally binding if incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 "Both claim they signed the same day." Duff wasn't present when Slash signed the document. MSL is making up an accusation. There were no lawyers present. It was unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubbaBubba Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Can you sign a legal document with your nickname only?You can if you're identified as such on the first page. Would be interesting to see the first page too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Anyone have a sample of Doug Goldstein's handwriting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncitingChaos Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Idk how legal documents work so I won't comment on how official the paper is. If it's true and Axl has told us the true version I think this goes a long way in making anything Axl has said credible. On the other hand it blurs the picture slash and duff have painted. If it's fake then oh well...wouldn't be the first time a guns fan has been duped, and we would be right back where we started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubbaBubba Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 MSL is accusing Duff McKagan of being a liar. MSL.This is better proof showing that Axl's version of events doesn't make sense: At the end of day, Axl aggrandized the name to himself. The statute of limitations ran out. Duress didn't matter once the statute of limitations ran out.. That's interesting. Msl's allegations depend on it being played out backstage.According to the quote above, Axl threatened not to finish the tour. This could easily have been threatened between dates, on the 'tour break' he describes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 "Group Name". Ha. What a weasel.MSL is grasping at straws.Someone should report MSL to the government of Sierra Leone and get his precious M.SL domain name revoked. He has a history and all.MSL is basing his whole theory on the dates on the left which appear to me in the same styled handwriting. Who's to say that wasn't added later?I wonder why Axl's sig isn't dated? The doc wouldn't be legally binding if incomplete.I think there is a date initialed by Axl on the paragraph, it is very small, 10/13/1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreCC Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 So you people finally get feed with the truth and you still vomit it?That documents prove that not only Axl's version was the truth, but also that they didn't sign the contract under duress (they weren't on tour) and also that they didn't sign on the same day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 All in this just validates what people have known. Axl got lawyers to draft something that would work in his favor. Slash & Duff signed the document without lawyers present.It was added to the contract and everyone signed off on it. It wasnt hidden in fine print etc as you had to initial the section verifying you had acknowledged it.Now at that time I didnt know or think about brand names or corporate value etc. All I knew is that I came in with the name and from day one everyone had agreed to it being mine should we break up and now it was in writing.Where are the initials? I can't really tell. Might be Slash and Duff's but it's not discernible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Axl's version of events still doesn't make sense. It's in the video. His explanation doesn't match up with the calendar. The manager he was referring to was gone for months.When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it. It had more to do with management than the band as our then manager was always tryin to convince someone they should fire me. As I had stopped speaking with him he sensed his days were numbered and was bending any ear he could along with attempting to sell our renegotiation out for a personal payday from Geffen. Niven was long gone. What did that have to do with the contract in October 1992? If we're to believe Axl's words then his description doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubbaBubba Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 "Group Name". Ha. What a weasel.MSL is grasping at straws.Someone should report MSL to the government of Sierra Leone and get his precious M.SL domain name revoked. He has a history and all.MSL is basing his whole theory on the dates on the left which appear to me in the same styled handwriting. Who's to say that wasn't added later?I wonder why Axl's sig isn't dated? The doc wouldn't be legally binding if incomplete.I think there is a date initialed by Axl on the paragraph, it is very small, 10/13/1992.No I think that's Axl initialling the added paragraph. The tiny date 10/15/92 is the date it was added. Or it could've been the date the whole contract was drawn up and appear on every page (other pages could verify this). Slash's initial S is there too. Duff's is illegible but there is a third initial so you'd have to assume it's him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Now that I look at I can kinda make out the initials. Duff also mentioned Duff Goldstein's verbal explanation which wasn't on the document. Since Doug was supposed to manage in the interest of Slash and Duff as well as Axl, he must have assumed he should trust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 slash's lies exposed yet again slash-defenders mad yet again tonight's gonna be a good night 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face. Also we arent lawyers or formally business educated so it was just a matter of all of us being naïve and doing what we thought was right at the time. Slash was imo being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights and I wasnt trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others couldve cared less.I don't know how Axl can claim to have been Naive given the circumstances. He's feigning ignorance in all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) So you people finally get feed with the truth and you still vomit it?That documents prove that not only Axl's version was the truth, but also that they didn't sign the contract under duress (they weren't on tour) and also that they didn't sign on the same dayPlease mate MSL posts pieces of a document that he could have easily pasted and cut from anywhere and manipulated by him to show anything he wants and you take this as gospel that it is genuine?...and where excatly did he get a copy of the document?........I would not believe anything that guy posts unless it can be verified on some other independant website that contained the complete document.............I am still trying to figure out your angle of going from one of Axl's biggest ctritics to one of his biggest defenders now...so what do you think is going to happen? you're going to suddenly get party passes or someone is going to send you unreleased songs now that you jumped aboard the Team Brazil express to nowhere? Edited December 2, 2013 by classicrawker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 i'll take a genuine looking document over the word of a heroin addict from a book known to contain factual errors and exaggerations, lol 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 This was item (f) of a long list of legalese to read through. Slash and Duff had no way to know the repercussions for the future. Lawyers and Managers acting in their interests were not present when this was signed. The scienter in all this appears to fall on Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubbaBubba Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) So you people finally get feed with the truth and you still vomit it?That documents prove that not only Axl's version was the truth, but also that they didn't sign the contract under duress (they weren't on tour) and also that they didn't sign on the same day No, it's just that we've not drunk the msl koolaid. Msl says the clause is on page 5 (which is true & actually printed above the added wording) and the sigs are on page 9 (which isn't visible). Look at the handwritten '35' in the corner. This is part of a larger bundle of gnr docs that have obviously also been hand-numbered. The contract is apparently only 9 pages. Without a complete document (consecutive pages) that sig page could've come from another document elsewhere in the bundle - unless someone can see a page 9 label on it.Still, it's very interesting to see some proof (of sorts). Edited December 2, 2013 by HubbaBubba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Do you guys think if Deepfreeze tries really hard, he can get the Supreme Court to review these proceedings and get Slash the band name he so deserves? Guns N' Roses feat. Phineas and Ferb - Kick It Up a Notch 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunder Monkey Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Doesn't make a lot of difference to me.It's simplistic to require the duress to be axl actually refusing to go on stage one night when it's obvious his emotional state was a constant issue for the band. How many riots were there? How often did he smash up his apartment? How many times was the set delayed as Axl wanted to talk about someone who has upset him?Slash has said at the time he needed to tour to reduce his dependance on drugs. (He found he used even heavier during downtimes).If this happened in a month break between shows you can bet he'd be very worried about the forthcoming shows being cancelled.All a manager would need to do is imply Axl would make trouble and everyone in the band knows the type of thing that would entail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Well the contract certainly validates what Duff alleged. He still have full equity in the band. It's kind of what I presumed. Axl obtained future use rights to the name but he didn't control Guns N' Roses 100% outright. He couldn't compete against Duff and Slash's interest. When Axl went against Activision for using Slash imagery he may have been going beyond the scope of what he acquired in this contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 The statute of limitations is 4 years for written contracts in California currently. MSL doesn't mention this at all in his thread. Axl never mentioned it either. Slash and Duff still remained with Axl's band through 1996. It would have been too late then even if it was under duress. I believe that was essentially the issue. I think MSL could have mentioned it in his very detailed post. I don't see why he would omit it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HubbaBubba Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 The statute of limitations is 4 years for written contracts in California currently. MSL doesn't mention this at all in his thread. Axl never mentioned it either. Slash and Duff still remained with Axl's band through 1996. It would have been too late then even if it was under duress. I believe that was essentially the issue. I think MSL could have mentioned it in his very detailed post. I don't see why he would omit it.http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.htmlOk I see.I'd like to see the whole doc with the paragraphs and sigs in context. This obviously won't happen. I think the cut n pastes he's posted are a little shady on their own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 The statute of limitations is 4 years for written contracts in California currently. MSL doesn't mention this at all in his thread. Axl never mentioned it either. Slash and Duff still remained with Axl's band through 1996. It would have been too late then even if it was under duress. I believe that was essentially the issue. I think MSL could have mentioned it in his very detailed post. I don't see why he would omit it.http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.htmlOk I see.I'd like to see the whole doc with the paragraphs and sigs in context. This obviously won't happen.I think the cut n pastes he's posted are a little shady on their own.I also find it odd this document suddenly surfaces now after all these years..........exactly where did MSL get this document after all this time? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts