Duff Mckagan Responds To AXL ROSE

[the dirt]

It's better than people urging him to do nothing for 15 years.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Is there proof? Like I said, if there isnt any proof the conversation took place, then it cant be used in court.

Axl doesnt need a third party to validate a first hand account. If this visit becomes an issue in court he could testify to this directly. Slash and Duff can contend that he is making it up the conversation? but then of course the issue would come down to credibility. The jury would believe whomever is more credible.

 

Actually, if you'd like help understanding the press release I suggest that you read the press release thread. Eva GnRAxlRosette already owned that one. ?

Good explanation of why it was relevant. Dont just pull statements out of thin air to try and "own" me when you know you cant back it up. I asked a simple question, and you dodged it. End of discussion.


Eva didnt "own" me. I'm still waiting on her to show "the proof in the pudding".

tsk tsk tsk James... ?it is you who did not respond to my final post on that subject. ?
If i recall your PM correctly.. ?

i'll say no more ?

You are correct, Eva. I was going to respond to your last post in that thread, but as you know when its really active around here and alot of threads are created, others get buried. I will now be forced to go discredit the "pudding" you posted.

and James its not hearsay if someone says it to you directly. ?

Is there proof? Like I said, if there isnt any proof the conversation took place, then it cant be used in court. Why would he want to use it anyways? Like I've said before, it has nothing to do with the lawsuit? If Axl thinks it does, then Slash needs to bring some irrelevant things to the trial like Stephanie Seymour and Erin Everly. They can be used as an example of Axl's "character".

So what is your point again?

You keep proclaiming that no one can offer any explanation of how what Axl related, if true, is relevant.

AGAIN you set up the scenario... ?James YOU said:

Lets live in dreamland for a minute and say its all true.

To which I responded

If, as you said we may, take it as true, then it is fact... ? a fact that Slash is duplicitous.

Then youre tried to back out of the scenario you proposed and re-argue that there is no proof that it is true... and that it is inadmissible "hearsay"

To which I advised you regarding what constitutes "hearsay" and pointed out that:

You can't have it both ways - you're saying all at once - ?Even if it's true its meaningless because we don't know if its true. ?
lol!

Now that a case has been made for its relevance you are sidestepping the point you originally challenged for discussion and saying no one could/would/should believe it without proof because of Axl's character - while it is you who proposed "Lets live in dreamland for a minute and say its all true."

I already explained answered your so-called challenge to show relevance:

If Slash said these things and, as the statements allude, conceded to being wrong to be waging this legal battle against Axl then it does lend doubt to the veracity of the accusations claimed in Slash's lawsuit.

Now, I'll even go a step further to say that his just showing up at Axl's house reeks of 'let's make a deal'... ?which IMO doesn't help his case.

As for your attempt to now involve "character"... ?no one here said that "character" was irrelevant.
Their entire suit is a assasignation attempt on Axl's character! ?They are calling him a thief!
Slash/Duff can, I suppose attempt to bring up whatever they want to about Axl if the judge allows it.... ?But what they need is to prove is their case. ?The burden of proof is on Slash/Duff.

Stephanie and Erin's testimony against Axl would likely be ruled irrelevant... unless Slash/Duff were claiming that Axl had sexually humilited him against his will... ?

Which goes back to the obvious regarding the case - the judge and jury will decide what is relevant, who is credible, etc.

But that is not what you asked James.

[ppbebe]

Why do people assume it's not relevant to the countersuit?

It has to be. Otherwise it wouldn't have been included in the release.

It has to be?? Please explain. I would love to know how hearsay from Slash insulting members of VR is relevant to the lawsuit. Please dont dodge this question. Its like the 2nd or 3rd time I have asked you this in response to several of your posts in similar threads, and you dont reply.  I would really like to know why you see how insults have anything to do with a lawsuit.

I love as how you ignore the rest of my post.

He would have left the "schandal" for other occasions,  As people still ask him about his ex bandmembers.
If he gave 2 shits about VR.

The court can see it at the main site of HTGTH, where people look in for GNR news. And at many other sites.
If they found total off topic gossip that has nothing to do with the actual complaint in Axl's release for the fans, would they be favourably impressed with it??

Go read the Axl-legal release thread

"More surprising to Axl are recent media reports that Slash (Saul Hudson) is claiming that he has always been supportive of Axl Rose and the new Guns N' Roses. Slash's actions in recent years have in fact been anything but supportive. Besides the lawsuits filed against Axl Rose, claiming, among other things, that Axl does not own the copyright in the songs that Axl co-authored with his former Guns N' Roses band mates, Slash has continually made negative and malicious statements about Axl in order to garner publicity for himself.............The courthouse is not his choice of forum. However, Axl could no longer sit quietly and allow the continuing dissemination of falsehoods and half-truths by his former band-mates."

And the following

"Slash and Duff have an unfortunate pattern over the past few years of filing sensational but baseless lawsuits for the purpose of generating anti-Axl propaganda. It is clear that Slash and Duff are looking for another opportunity to spread untruths about Axl in an effort to hurt his reputation and to alienate his fans while at the same time creating a profile for themselves."

W.Axl Rose Responds to Frivolous Copyright Suit by Former Guns N' Roses Members

I needed to edit your post like the GNR camp likes to edit press releases. Wanted you to feel all good and comfy.

No matter how much You distrust the GNR camp,
The fact that they sent out the whole release to GNR sites to show it to the public speaks volume. Since it is clearly stated at the beginning of the release that it is the official response from W. Axl Rose in regards to the lawsuits filed by Saul "Slash" Hudson and Michael "Duff" McKagan, everything in it is naturally a part of the counterclaim that was filed on the 3rd of march, which is just before this release was sent.
You can't argue that or you answer my questions in my previous post.  Or do you think Axl would choose to lose 2 pending lawsuits and this counterclaim, his publishing rights and his reputation to Slash and Duff, in order to mess about their band? If he would, yeah I'd agree that Axl was insane. So were Merck and his lawyer.
Who would imagine any Judge or Jury can be online and check any GNR/music site, huh?

You still havent explained. Why do you keep quoting various press releases when they dont prove the point you are trying to make?

Again Axl filed the counterclaim on the 3rd of march asking the Federal Court to confirm his ownership of his own creative works. Soon after the counterclaim was filed the press release was sent out. It's safe to assume that the latter is the digest of the former. The full story should be in the complaint. We'll hear some more details. So till then I thought rather than putting my interpretation on the matter I'd quote from the original text like the above ones that should help you to understand the main point of Axl's counterclaim, as I prefer ppl to think for themselves.  No one wants to be doggedly forced someone's theory on them.


But if you insist
Here goes!

[ppbebe]

All the Slash/Duff credibility issues were already addressed in the rest of that press release so there is absolutely ZERO justification for that "October" paragraph - true or not -  being in there.  I would think that Axl was/is really emotional n' hot n' bothered over all the SnD shit and who knows whatever else BUT I think it was up to the lawyer to get it thru to Axl why "that" paragraph should NOT be included.  The last person in the world you want to be an ass-kissing yes-man is your lawyer.

As an 'Axl-Zealot', I would back him up on just about anything ... but "that" paragraph being published just makes me want to vomit.

Go on. Vomit till you have nothing left in your tummy. 
The paragraph may digest poorly but it is there for reasons.

Here is a digestive. the trial for Slash and Duffs original claim against Axl got postponed till this march in last October. I'm not expert at the flow of the suit but Eva, sic, madagas kv etc are.

In October of 2005 Slash made an unannounced 5:30 AM visit to Axl Rose?s house. Not appearing to be under the influence, Slash came to inform Axl that: ?Duff was spineless,? ?Scott was a fraud,? that he ?hates Matt Sorum? and that in this ongoing war, contest or whatever anyone wants to call it that Slash has waged against Axl for the better part of 20 years, that Axl has proven himself ?the stronger.? Based on his conduct in showing up at Rose's home, Axl was hopeful that Slash would live up to his pronouncements that he wanted to end the war and move on with life. Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case.

actually Slash's words are all written as indirect speeches. the quotation marks were there to imply that the writer is doubtful of those words. Just like  MTV added the marks to their headline: Scott Weiland Hits Back At 'Unoriginal, Uncreative' Axl Rose.

Not appearing to be under the influence, Slash came to inform Axl that:

Note: it doesn't say they had a tete a tete with each other then.

Duff was spineless, Scott was a fraud, that he hates Matt Sorum

Axl doesn't agree that Scott is a fraud or that Duff is spineless. I can see Axl thinking like "here he goes sounding off again!"
Look, who is actually Suffering an apparent attack of arrogance and ego, not willing to acknowledge the contributions of his band mates, of today or the past!

and that in this ongoing war, contest or whatever anyone wants to call it that Slash has waged against Axl for the better part of 20 years,

Note, for the better part of 20 years=since about 1985.

that Axl has proven himself the stronger.

Polly Axl is not into the "Mine is bigger than yours" business Slash seemingly has been after from the beginning of GNR.

But anyways not based on those questionable words of slash but

Based on his conduct in showing up at Rose's home, Axl was hopeful that Slash would live up to his pronouncements that he wanted to end the war and move on with life.

Again, Lets not forget the court for Slash and Duffs claim against Axl adjourned at about that time.

I say, Axl has no intention of causing VR a trouble. It's probable that there was friction in VR already.
If anything, he'd rather Slash finds happiness with VR and stick to it than keeps bothering Axl and GNR any further.
however?.

Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case.

I guess we partly know the rest of the story.

Ross halfin's diary has struck twice..

On November 19, he wrote "We discuss the two versions of Guns N' Roses Greatest Hits Vol II. One is done by Axel's management. Slash says the track listing is good but the politics from Axel's management leave a lot to be desired. The other is done by Universal. Slash tells me he hasn't approved either, so who knows what'll come out. 'I haven't seen Axel since 1996!' I remember this because Slash was staying at the Sunset Marquis and hanging out at the pool during the day with my son Oliver. That was when he left Guns N' Roses, saying 'Why ...why ...why...?'"

On February 04, he wrote "The orignal line-up is supposed to play Download in June with their metal chums, Metallica, if Lars can be bothered to turn up."
 
In December Slash started to claim CD to be released in march as if he knew more than the GNR members.

And the insiders rumours about the reunion were rampant, yes? Minneapolisnewsman?
And the smoke was bigger than ever, yes? Sorry I forget the poster's name.

Guess who's been stirring up the smoke?

some posters here say they never consider this band as GNR cos Slash and Duff have admitted that it's not guns n roses (without them).

In some parts, I might be just paraphrasing what eva, estranged or others has already said.
But anyways These are how I digest the paragraph at issue so far.

[jameslofton29]

Oh and it also shows how little to no credibity slash and duff have since they have not dropped the 2nd lawsuit where Cobalt even said they made an error and they fixed it right away. So slash and duff have a vendetta against Axl. I wonder how pissed the judge is going to be for slash and duff wasting the courts time on the 2nd case where axl was not at fault. The fact is cobalt was and with? a simple phone call they could have had it fixed faster but they wanted to sue axl instead.

Regardless of whether Slash or Duff have any "credibilty", these statements from Axl's lawyers still have no relevance to the trial. I wish you (and several others would realize that. Someone needs to back me up on this, because its the truth.

The fact of the matter is you nor anyone else knows that it has no merit in the lawsuit. For all we know it could be a big part in the countersuit. Untill the court papers get out then no one will know one way or the other, so please don't go around making blanket statements when you have no idea what your talking about.?

You have very poor debating skills. Instead of proclaiming someone doesnt know what they are talking about, you need to back your minor statements up with some examples. Please show me what "merit" it has in the lawsuit. I keep waiting for this to be shown, by debaters here much better than you, and they cant produce the goods and neither will you.

If Axl thinks the Slash VR comments are a big part of the lawsuit, then he has already lost.

[chineseblues]

Oh and it also shows how little to no credibity slash and duff have since they have not dropped the 2nd lawsuit where Cobalt even said they made an error and they fixed it right away. So slash and duff have a vendetta against Axl. I wonder how pissed the judge is going to be for slash and duff wasting the courts time on the 2nd case where axl was not at fault. The fact is cobalt was and with  a simple phone call they could have had it fixed faster but they wanted to sue axl instead.

Regardless of whether Slash or Duff have any "credibilty", these statements from Axl's lawyers still have no relevance to the trial. I wish you (and several others would realize that. Someone needs to back me up on this, because its the truth.

The fact of the matter is you nor anyone else knows that it has no merit in the lawsuit. For all we know it could be a big part in the countersuit. Untill the court papers get out then no one will know one way or the other, so please don't go around making blanket statements when you have no idea what your talking about. 

You have very poor debating skills. Instead of proclaiming someone doesnt know what they are talking about, you need to back your minor statements up with some examples. Please show me what "merit" it has in the lawsuit. I keep waiting for this to be shown, by debaters here much better than you, and they cant produce the goods and neither will you.

If Axl thinks the Slash VR comments are a big part of the lawsuit, then he has already lost.

No one can produce anything simply because we dont have the legal papers. Untill anyone sees them, then no one will know one way or another how it pertains to the lawsuit. So really stop acting like you know what you're talking about when you so obviously have no clue at all.

[killingvector]

I think Eva explained it perfectly. It goes to slash's crediblility. .

I dont think she did, and I dont think it does. Does Axl want to go down the road of credibility and character? If so, Slash needs to bring Stephanie Seymour carrying a litterbox and a bootleg of Axl rants into the courtroom and that pretty much counteracts any 5:30 am VR insults.

Axl wasn't directing these comments to the jury. He was making a statement to the media. If you read the statement, you can clearly see how the meeting explains WHY Axl is filing this counterclaim AT this time and WHY he considers slash to be dishonest. That is it. At no point does Axl mention that the suit is about what happened in October 2005.

what are you people part of axl's legal team... I bet if anyone gnr related reads this board they must fucking laugh their asses off..

Seriously dude, if that is all you have to contribute, I would prefer you didn't.

[jameslofton29]

I think Eva explained it perfectly. It goes to slash's crediblility. .

I dont think she did, and I dont think it does. Does Axl want to go down the road of credibility and character? If so, Slash needs to bring Stephanie Seymour carrying a litterbox and a bootleg of Axl rants into the courtroom and that pretty much counteracts any 5:30 am VR insults.

Axl wasn't directing these comments to the jury. He was making a statement to the media. If you read the statement, you can clearly see how the meeting explains WHY Axl is filing this counterclaim AT this time and WHY he considers slash to be dishonest. That is it. At no point does Axl mention that the suit is about what happened in October 2005.

Yeah, I know that KV. You havent brought up that he will use it for the trial, and that its relevant for that. Many others here have. Yes, he mentions the countersuit. No question about that. Its the Slash VR shit that is irrelevant. Telling the world slash is dishonest doesnt help his case. He can save that stuff for the trial. If the judge will allow it.

Interesting you bring up a jury. Could Axl have been trying to taint the jury pool? You think that was his way to get the lawsuit thrown out of court? Axl is very smart, and there had to be some sort of motive behind his comments.

[killingvector]

You havent brought up that he will use it for the trial, and that its relevant for that. Many others here have. Yes, he mentions the countersuit. No question about that. Its the Slash VR shit that is irrelevant. Telling the world slash is dishonest doesnt help his case. He can save that stuff for the trial. If the judge will allow it.

I think you are assuming that it will come up. I 'm not sure that it will in the scope of axl's allegations. The October visit is not direct evidence of Axl's countersuit.  The visit does serve a purpose as part of the statement.

[jameslofton29]

You havent brought up that he will use it for the trial, and that its relevant for that. Many others here have. Yes, he mentions the countersuit. No question about that. Its the Slash VR shit that is irrelevant. Telling the world slash is dishonest doesnt help his case. He can save that stuff for the trial. If the judge will allow it.

I think you are assuming that it will come up. I 'm not sure that it will in the scope of axl's allegations. The October visit is not direct evidence of Axl's countersuit.? The visit does serve a purpose as part of the statement.

No, I dont think it will come up. Thats why I say its irrelevant to the big picture. Its other people here that seem to think its some big deal and think its going to help him. If i was Axl's lawyer, I would advise him not to use that type of character assassination in court. It could easily backfire.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

The big picure is, as Axl's statement declares, that its time tthe truth be made known.

Amen & hallelujah!
The truth shall set you free!
Say...Can I get a witness??!!