MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[Rauschen]

Wow, lots of stuff coming to the surface in this thread! Luckily we have a community that is here to dig for the truth and answer the tough questions... Shrug.. At least Axl didn't let these lies keep him down and was able to show the "bitter" fans he is GNR and deserves the name.

[snooze72]

My pg. 2 seems to have the same text but again, some different initials and line breaks. I think people can see that it obviously looks pretty draft-like and that multiple copies are printed up for for initialing. AGAIN, it's a loooong process. The MOAs are to make sure everybody's on the same page to be able to proceed without backtracking. Maybe Duff took offence when the final was presented maybe July 5, '93 in Barcelona or maybe when the clause was first added maybe July '92 in Germany, who knows, he's said both in the past. Its not relevant.

Anything management-wise was an administrative mess, this wasn't a slick business operation. Somebody probably pulled a draft with all the right info out of a drawer and filed it with the court. One copy could have come from Duff's management, the other from Slash's. Nobody cared. The opposing factions were good with filing a draft because nobody was arguing the points, only the repercussions of those points.

[Sigh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it would still be a contract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, IMO, this is fairly straightforward.

Ali

Apparently not.

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

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

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

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

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.

[dalsh327]

Where is Adler's lawsuit as far as the timeline goes...during the time this was going on?

[smoke]

He accidentally smoked the last copy.

[Sigh]

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

Thank you!

[Sigh]

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

Snooze, we know the exact day that they signed. The band was not on tour. It is literally impossible for their backstage under duress stories to be true. Literally impossible. We don't know the specific day that clause was ADDED, but we do know what day they signed off on the entire agreement and they were not on tour. The agreement was not signed backstage before a show. They didn't even sign on the same day.

Had their stories been true, they would have mentioned them in their lawsuit. Convenient that they make no mention of such things in a situation where lying would have serious consequences.

Once again, you just don't know what you are talking about.

You don't know when the typed in language was added, whether it was before or after the original document was signed.

Which means you don't know what the phrase "literally impossible" means.

You also don't know if the typed in language was added after the original document was signed and presented while the band was on tour.

And, once again, why make an issue of the name in a 2004 lawsuit which wasn't even about the name?

[Sigh]

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.

You don't know what you are talking about, and with each post, it shows more and more.

Addenda are added to contracts all the time. Sometimes, new pieces of paper are used. But not always. And it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Your suggestion that the partners could not use a copy of the existing contract to make an addendum is just ridiculous nonsense.

Now, any addenda should be dated, and be signed on the new date, and if a party wanted to make an issue of that not being done, they could certainly do so.

If they cared to. Apparently, neither Slash nor Duff cared to make an issue of the name, ever, despite Rose's claims that Slash was using the name for purposes of suing him.

Which makes me wonder where the lawsuit was filed in which Slash (or Duff) sued Axl over the name. Or if any such lawsuit ever existed.

[jmapelian]

cause @sigh, we have to prove slash and duff and izzy are liars and axl is everything thats good about gnr....lmao

MSL proven false in canter banter

Is it true that Duff wanted to come back but was refused

Forum member MSL has claimed that Duff has asked to come back to GNR several times but Axl has refused him in favor of Tommy. Do you know if this is true?

Edited by ShadowOfTheWave, Yesterday, 11:03 PM.

• +1

• Back to top
• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Report

#2

recklessroad

Posted Yesterday, 11:51 PM

DEMI-GOD

• 
• Insider
• 
• 1,477 posts
• 10-August 07

100% false, Sure Duff will show up for a gig now and then but the only way he would really come back is if Slash was back too. Duff is in and out of all kinds of bands and projects and is way too busy hang around in one place unless it was the whole picture.

Edited by recklessroad, Yesterday, 11:59 PM.

Edited December 7, 2013 by jmapelian

[Howard2k]

Save your fingers Sigh. Everyone here is a contract expert anyway.

[snooze72]

Where is Adler's lawsuit as far as the timeline goes...during the time this was going on?

Great question, dalsh. Wish you would have asked it before I hauled all the files back to storage ya bastard.

Hauled them out again. Unfortunately, can't make out dates on the Axl deposition, but Doug's was June 9, '93, and he was in California. I'd guess he skipped most of that leg of the European tour for the pending birth of his son.

[dalsh327]

I definitely didn't get the impression Duff was desperate to go back to GNR. They played nice for 5 minutes when it came to the Greatest Hits lawsuit, then they turned on each other. Not sure which happened first.

Where is Adler's lawsuit as far as the timeline goes...during the time this was going on?

Great question, dalsh. Wish you would have asked it before I hauled all the files back to storage ya bastard.

Hauled them out again. Unfortunately, can't make out dates on the Axl deposition, but Doug's was June 9, '93, and he was in California. I'd guess he skipped most of that leg of the European tour for the pending birth of his son.

While you're at it, got the Erin and Stephanie transcripts?

Edited December 7, 2013 by dalsh327

[snooze72]

While you're at it, got the Erin and Stephanie transcripts?

You're pushin' it pal.

[T.wa.T]

I wonder if it was possible for the other members, Im thinking it was, to draw up their own contract for Axl? One stating he has to be at the venue at a certain time prior to the gig etc... One that basically trys to keep him in line, so to speak?

All in all, as much as I like Duff and Slash, and I do, I totally see why Axl wanted to protect his interest in the band that he started. His fear of the other guys doing whatever, were probably equal to what they felt about him. The way things stood, he would/could be out numbered by guys who weren't in the band when the name came about. It was his name, he should be able to do what he wants with it.

I totally understand the name wouldn't be what it became if not for the others but it still his name. In the end its a no win for everyone. All over a name. Its crazy.

First thing they should have done was, get clean, get right in the head and then sit down and figure it out. Absolute horrific job by management, specifically Doug Goldstein and to a lesser extant Alan Niven. Those guys were supposed to keep them united but instead divided them. Fuckin shame the band didn't see it and if they did even worse that they let it happen.

[ITG]

Where is Adler's lawsuit as far as the timeline goes...during the time this was going on?

Oh yeah, forgot about that. I used to argue with Ali about this. Adler started suing in 1991. I don't know when it ended. Not sure how it would work but Adler was retroactively given his rights back. That could have been a technical avenue to invalidate the in between agreements between Slash/Duff/Axl. I'm not sure how legally it would work but it was an idea worth exploring .

[wasted]

I doubt you can sign a contract then add bits after. but maybe you can, that would explain the 93 story about the name or trademark as Duff calls it.that would explain the confusion in the simpliest way.

[SoulMonster]

I doubt you can sign a contract then add bits after. but maybe you can, that would explain the 93 story about the name or trademark as Duff calls it.that would explain the confusion in the simpliest way.

Contracts and agreements are often living documents. Despite the best efforts that went into drafting the original document, one might decide that additions needs to be made at a later date, or decide to change some of the provisions. Rather than make the original agreement void and drafting a new one, addenda can be added in various ways. Either as stand alone documents, attached pages or added text at original pages.

[Padme]

If this doesn't work, I'm dishing this off to someone else. Apologies for all the MLS logos.

http://s1334.photobucket.com/user/magisme/library/?view=recent

Finally!!! Thank you Magisme. Why was it that hard for other people to do this before? I took a quick look. Although this Memorandum is date back 1992, It clearly looks like a draft, with asterisks, lines crossed and lines added. Maybe it was a final document but it doesn´t look that way.

[jarhead018]

You people are all so full of it at this point.

[kanudo19]

the only one desperate to get back on the money train is $la$h

[wasted]

I doubt you can sign a contract then add bits after. but maybe you can, that would explain the 93 story about the name or trademark as Duff calls it.that would explain the confusion in the simpliest way.

Contracts and agreements are often living documents. Despite the best efforts that went into drafting the original document, one might decide that additions needs to be made at a later date, or decide to change some of the provisions. Rather than make the original agreement void and drafting a new one, addenda can be added in various ways. Either as stand alone documents, attached pages or added text at original pages.

Then that is most likely what happened, as it supports both stories. Duff in his book refers to a contract about the name of the band. I think Axl denies there was duress, that they were held hostage. He probably would have mentioned it if they weren't even on tour, he didn't contest that, just that they weret forced. But he did say Duff couldn't care less and Slash even said he didn't care at the time. He claims they were happy with it, as it was mostly for protection than to steal the name and spend 20 years trying to release one album.

Edited December 7, 2013 by wasted

[magisme]

2/10

[Rustycage]

cause @sigh, we have to prove slash and duff and izzy are liars and axl is everything thats good about gnr....lmao

MSL proven false in canter banter

Is it true that Duff wanted to come back but was refused

Forum member MSL has claimed that Duff has asked to come back to GNR several times but Axl has refused him in favor of Tommy. Do you know if this is true?

Edited by ShadowOfTheWave, Yesterday, 11:03 PM.

• +1

• Back to top
• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Report

#2

recklessroad

Posted Yesterday, 11:51 PM

DEMI-GOD

• 
• Insider
• 
• 1,477 posts
• 10-August 07

100% false, Sure Duff will show up for a gig now and then but the only way he would really come back is if Slash was back too. Duff is in and out of all kinds of bands and projects and is way too busy hang around in one place unless it was the whole picture.

Edited by recklessroad, Yesterday, 11:59 PM.

Worth quoting again.

The neutered sycophant just likes to throw out random shit and hopes it sticks.

[dalsh327]

Duff begged for his old job back?? Where in the timeline would this have happened? If anyone did, Izzy came off as desperate for his old job back.

[dalsh327]

These should be edited into the first page by OP, they're going to get lost in the thread.

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

http://s1334.photobu...ry/?view=recent