MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[magisme]

Not saying you're full of shit, but post the whole document or GTFO.

[ITG]

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Lol. It's pointed out in one of the pics posted before that there are fundamental requirements to a lawsuit contract which includes "consideration" from both sides. Warren Buffett could promise to give all his money to his kids when he dies and then decides not to on his deathbed. He could even make that agreement in writing. It still wouldn't be a contract unless the agreement involved his kids giving up consideration too. That's one of the mysteries about all this, and until MSL posts the whole thing or someone walks to the courthouse it won't be known. What did Axl give up in exchange for the name? Originally the rumored "consideration" that Axl gave was to continue the tour. You'd have to look at the whole document or documents to see what went down.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

Edit. I wrote lawsuit when I meant contract.

Edited December 4, 2013 by InThisGrave

[DieselDaisy]

4. The source of this is MSL who persists in an anti-old members campaign after he publicly blackmailed the band a while back and since then has wildly changed his stance on all things GNR. Draw your own conclusions on why that is.

Have you seen Invaders from Mars? I think Team Brazil put one of those darts into his neck when he got caught with 'his stick' of stolen documents bribing GN'R. Seriously though, they probably gave him the choice: A/ lawsuit like that guy who got busted leaking TWAT B/ Become a dicksucker. B was the answer. So, Team Brazil got to him haha. Zombiefied him haha. I bet that cartoon was right, with Jarmo as a Snakepit fan. ''Jarmo was once a snakepit fan but sadly, the others (TB) got to him''. Same with MSL. And THEY COULD GET TO YOU. Be warned. It is literally like something out of a freakish 50s sci-fi film, but considering nugnr operate like Area 51, that makes sense.

God, this band and its fans are fuckin deranged. I do not even know why I post here (the gnr section) anymore. I do not even give that much of a shit about Slash let alone Axl who is second on my list of all time hated musicians (just behind Gary Glitter).

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.

I do not possess the full document nor am I privy to the minutes of the 2004 lawsuit. Nor, seemingly, are you.

[Sigh]

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.

[Mysteron]

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Lol. It's pointed out in one of the pics posted before that there are fundamental requirements to a lawsuit which includes "consideration" from both sides. Warren Buffett could promise to give all his money to his kids when he dies and then decides not to on his deathbed. He could even make that agreement in writing. It still wouldn't be a contract unless the agreement involved his kids giving up consideration too. That's one of the mysteries about all this, and until MSL posts the whole thing or someone walks to the courthouse it won't be known. What did Axl give up in exchange for the name? Originally the rumored "consideration" that Axl gave was to continue the tour. You'd have to look at the whole document or documents to see what went down.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Lol. It's pointed out in one of the pics posted before that there are fundamental requirements to a lawsuit which includes "consideration" from both sides. Warren Buffett could promise to give all his money to his kids when he dies and then decides not to on his deathbed. He could even make that agreement in writing. It still wouldn't be a contract unless the agreement involved his kids giving up consideration too. That's one of the mysteries about all this, and until MSL posts the whole thing or someone walks to the courthouse it won't be known. What did Axl give up in exchange for the name? Originally the rumored "consideration" that Axl gave was to continue the tour. You'd have to look at the whole document or documents to see what went down.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

The point I picked up is that Slash and Duff both signed a single document, they both gave accounts as to when and why they did it.

This document appears in line with what was said, and all we are looking for here are the dates of the signatures, nothing else. Consideration and all other fluffy elements of the law are not relevant

[ITG]

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.

[Mysteron]

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.

Consideration 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.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Mysteron

[Sigh]

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.

[ITG]

I have actual footage of Axl acquiring the GN'R name:

[HubbaBubba]

I see. So duff could easily have been presented with a document in Barcelona that we're not seeing.

The leap of faith is to assume this is the only and final document dealing with ownership of the name.

[ITG]

I see. So duff could easily have been presented with a document in Barcelona that we're not seeing.

The leap of faith is to assume this is the only and final document dealing with ownership of the name.

Exactly.

[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

[cooker]

Until one of the 3 speaks about this I'll let all of you fine folks figure this one out.

[Ali]

So summing up:

1. The MOA is not the same thing as the actual contract making it's dates irrelevant to any stories told by ex members.

2. Any ethical reading of the situation would acknowledge that whenever Doug threatened that Axl would cancel the tour it was a threat that had to be taken seriously by Slash/Duff considering Axl's prior history of conduct against his own best interests (rage/arrests/riots/stage incidents etc).

3. The arguments in this thread are premised on the idea that if Slash/Duff lied they would be devils, yet, there's no ethical problem with Axl taking the name contract he got signed amidst the insanity of that period, quitting the partnership that made him famous, creating a new business under the same name, and offering his former co partners jobs as paid employees . I ask you which is ethically worse for people that lived together on the streets?

4. The source of this is MSL who persists in an anti-old members campaign after he publicly blackmailed the band a while back and since then has wildly changed his stance on all things GNR. Draw your own conclusions on why that is.

I disagree with your first statement. As a reference:

Partnership Agreements: Memorandum of Understanding

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a written agreement between two organizations that helps establish the ground rules for any partnership activities you choose to explore.

An MOU should outline what each organization agrees to contribute to a partnership, a timeframe for delivering the desired outcomes, details of exactly how each party will collaborate (e.g., regular in-person meeting, conference calls, written approval of all activities by both parties), and how the parties will authorize and pay for any costs incurred in delivering the desired outcomes.

MOUs are like contracts that define the way two organizations will work together. While MOUs are technically legally binding, consider these documents as a tool to facilitate partnership and ensure a smooth working relationship between two organizations. Given the legal nature of the documents, however, it’s wise to have a legal representative review the language included in the MOU before it is signed.

http://www.apapracticecentral.org/business/collaboration/partnership-agreements.aspx

Ali

[jman2000]

Without reading this entire mess, I'm going to go out on a limb and make a couple guesses at what has been said.

MSL is trying to drum up publicity for his website, and continues to be a spokesperson for Team Brazil. If anybody has questioned him or his motives, he has twisted around their posts to imply they are haters and they are unhappy in their real lives off of the forum.

Coma, Andre and one other guy, I can't remember his name off the top of my head, are really going overboard praising and defending MSL.

On the MSL board, many posters are talking about how bad mygnrforum is and are keeping track of everything that is being posted and then insulting this forum's posters.

Brainsaber is letting us know he takes a lot of delight and joy that Slash fans are irate, butt-hurt and angry about this topic. Slash fans will be discussing the matter civilly, the only people showing great emotion will be guys like Brainsaber. Who will be taking all this information very, very srsly. And saying things about people spending time on a forum of a band they don't like, ooops. Followed by saying how he laughs out loud at how angry Slash fans are.

Volcano and Wf*ckina (who both are actually pretty nice guys) will have several posts calling Slash and Duff junkies and loser drug addicts. Brainsaber will join those two in saying how stupid and dumb Slash and Duff are.

Ali will be defending Axl's every move.

Rita, dangerous curves and a couple others will be bashing any user who says anything negative about Axl or what he did. All in the hopes that Axl will send them a PM.

I bet I'm pretty close with my predictions.

As for the actual issue here?

I really don't care. And am confused as to why so many people on this forum are more worked up about it than the actual members of the band. Weird.

Axl is a prick, is hard to work for, and pulled a prick move with the contract.

Slash and Duff were stupid to give up the name so easily. Was it because they were strung out? Or because they were tired of dealing with Axl's bullsh*t, so they said "f*ck it"? Probably a combination of both.

It was how many years ago? Why are "fans" now arguing and fighting about it?

Who cares. None of us were there, none of us know the real story.

Everybody actually involved has moved on. Shouldn't the fans as well?

Cry about it.

[ITG]

Can anyone verify it was Slash and Duff that entered it into the 2004 lawsuit and not the other way around? Ultimately we're just relying on other people's claims.

[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?

[jman2000]

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

Edited December 4, 2013 by jman2000

[cooker]

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

But what "Truth" is it really? Perhaps MSL is being truthful. Until all the facts are known this is at best a half truth. This as it stands is not smoking gun.

Edited December 5, 2013 by cooker

[HubbaBubba]

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.

[jmapelian]

Proof of what, slash and duff signing away the name? Nobody's denying it.

Does it really matter if they were on a break between legs of a tour when they signed it? Being they continued to tour after they signed it? At some point on the tour, they were threatend with the possibility of axl walking off the tour. Yes, the actual circumstances may differ, but I don't really think it matters. Whether they signed it during a break in tour legs or 2 minutes before they were going onstage - they continued to tour after the document was signed.

But I doubt it was slash and duff's idea to dissolve the original partnership, gve the band name to axl, and agree to be his employees. They may have agreed to it to keep the tour going since it went well into 93 and this was signed in 92, though they may or may not have had cotracts signed for future tour dates after signibg where they may have facedlegal liability. I have no idea why they went along with it cause they could have told axl to fuck off and die at the time they were presented with legal wrankling by axl ad lived with the consequences.

But obviously, it ultimately led them to quit the band - so good job to axl for the reorg - look what it brought him. He should be proud of hiself forhow he's managed the band since the reorg.

[jman2000]

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.

[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

Edited December 5, 2013 by Ali

[jman2000]

Complaints, Complaints, Complains.

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

[wfuckinga]

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