|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Nov 20, 2003 13:32:40 GMT -5
Don't have to...the court paper says OTIS WILLIAMS,his name is in there along with management.  Mike...you've seen the court papers? Could you direct us to what you've seen, by way of a link or whereever you found it? Thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 20, 2003 14:06:52 GMT -5
Mike...you've seen the court papers? Could you direct us to what you've seen, by way of a link or whereever you found it? Thanks Check out Jonel,she posted the story about Bo suing . |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Nov 20, 2003 17:07:26 GMT -5
Check out Jonel,she posted the story about Bo suing . Mike sweetie...I see our darlin' Jonel has posted several newspaper articles, not court papers. In not one of them do they report that Bo is suing Otis for not paying him or underpaying him. He is reportedly suing Otis for defamation of character. They always leave the separation between the suit against Motown (the managers/money people) and the one naming Otis, in each report I see up here. And again, they are not court papers...they're newspaper articles. It would be nice to see copies of court filings, so we could see exactly who is named in each of his allegations. One says "Band members" in the defamation suit, the others say "Williams". |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 22, 2003 13:15:12 GMT -5
Mike sweetie...I see our darlin' Jonel has posted several newspaper articles, not court papers. In not one of them do they report that Bo is suing Otis for not paying him or underpaying him. He is reportedly suing Otis for defamation of character. They always leave the separation between the suit against Motown (the managers/money people) and the one naming Otis, in each report I see up here. And again, they are not court papers...they're newspaper articles. It would be nice to see copies of court filings, so we could see exactly who is named in each of his allegations. One says "Band members" in the defamation suit, the others say "Williams". He is named in the suit. Ron 's name does not appear anywhere. If you read further,Otis is named in with the shortchanging. I didn't put it there. They are reports of the court papers. Are you saying that Jonel is giving us wrong information? Is this another excuse? Sounds like it to me! I don't see Otis filing a suit for money he didn't receive. Why is he the only one? Don't add up. You know it. |
|
|
|
Post by selfishreasons on Nov 22, 2003 13:58:45 GMT -5
I don't know what papers are what and all the parties being sued. But I do know that it seems odd that this isn't the first time we've heard this or a similar story from former members. Why do we always hear that the money got funny? Normally I would say that when you except a job you know up front what you are to be getting paid. This time I am of the impression that it's not that clear cut. As far as defemation of character, I don't know. Bo might have something that stnads up. After all, people sued him in that TV moive and such. I think there might be a history. true or flase, there is a history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nupeman88 on Nov 22, 2003 16:36:28 GMT -5
YAAY for whoever resurrected this post!!!! THANK YOU. And Thank you Ivory...remember, you keep asking me why I thought Richard left the Temptations AFTER Melvin died!! This is the article I found on the net lo these several years ago that gave me that impression ! Following the death of his cousin Melvin Franklin in 1995 of heart failure, Street felt it was time to go. Which of course makes me wonder about the veracity of anything else he might say in this book we hope to see...something as easily verifiable as THAT inaccuracy, what about other inaccuracies that might creep into his story, that we can't prove or disprove so readily? so, now in the same paragraph, we have Richard saying that, and this : But worse still, an accounting of the group's finances revealed that he and other members had been significantly underpaid by its management.. Both true? (no) Both false? (?) . How do we pick? Also notice, he did NOT say "Underpaid by Otis". My thing is if you weren't satisfied in being a Tempt why didn't he attempt to revive the Didtants or the Monitors? You know why? MONEY!!! Ain't nobody going to pay to hear that.. TEMPTATIONS has name recognition ...That sells tickets and put buts in seats!! |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Nov 23, 2003 6:13:03 GMT -5
He is named in the suit. Ron 's name does not appear anywhere. If you read further,Otis is named in with the shortchanging. I didn't put it there. They are reports of the court papers. Are you saying that Jonel is giving us wrong information? Is this another excuse? Sounds like it to me! I don't see Otis filing a suit for money he didn't receive. Why is he the only one? Don't add up. You know it. Mike...I'm not making excuses and YOU know it. Newspaper reporting is notoriously ambiguous and laced with innaccuracies. Of three articles, I see one that lumps in with Otis with the money issues. Court filings are the only "papers" that would tell the accurate story of who is named specifically in each of the allegations. You can't pick the one newspaper article that says what you want to see, and claim that is the only accurate TRUTH. When I see court filings that name Otis as one of the defendants over the money issues, I will then agree that Bo is suing Otis over the money. Right now WE can't tell for sure one way or another and its a waste of time arguing about who shot nelly in the belly. THAT said...one of my initial thoughts has always been... hmmmm, you change a light bulb 15 times and they keep burning out before their expected life span...anybody ever think of checking the socket they're getting screwed into ( by)?  :shocked :shocked :shocked |
|
|
|
Post by janebse on Nov 23, 2003 8:06:43 GMT -5
Otis name is mentioned sometimes because he has legal use of the name Temptations. And the operative word here is "use" not ownership. Motown legally owns the name "Temptations". When the Tempts went to Atlantic in the '70's, Motown let them take the name with them, but Motown still owned it. Why? Unlike Eddie who sold all his rights to his material, etc. when he left Motown, Otis always remained tied to Motown. In his book Otis says that when he felt Motown was cheating them, he looked around and talked to artists with other companies, and they all said, "You have it much better at Motown." And then Otis added something to the effect that before he jumped out of an airplane, he always wanted to make sure he had a parachute.
Nuperman has a very good point. Richard was with the Temptations over 20 years. He wanted to become a Temptation so badly he hung around, singing behind the curtains, etc. until he became one. He was the spokesman (like Ron today) on stage.
I suspect he simply became tired of touring and left, but then discovered he couldn't make any money on his own. And ten years later he is whining. Why? Ah, money again.
As Nuperman said, "If he wanted a group, why didn't he just call it the Distants," as he did at one time. Why don't any of these former Tempts call themselves by another name? And the TRUTH is they cannot make as much money by using their name alone or another name. It's only when they tag "former Temptation" on themselves that people pay money to hear them. And as Maurice Watts said even if they use their own name, the place where they are singing advertise them as "former Temptations" or maybe not even former and the MC introduces them as a "Temptation".
Back in the '50's people worked for the U.S. government at a decent job and only made $2,000 a year, that's for a whole year. Now I don't see people suing the government because the same job pays at least $40,000 a year now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Nov 23, 2003 10:14:45 GMT -5
No, if there's anything both parties agree on, it's that Richard's departure had to do with money. Who's to blame in the matter is up in the air.
Damon, Ali and Richard have all had groups with names that did not contain "Temptations." But you're right, they don't make any money (I would imagine) and they STILL get mis-labeled.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 23, 2003 14:04:31 GMT -5
Mike...I'm not making excuses and YOU know it. Newspaper reporting is notoriously ambiguous and laced with innaccuracies. Of three articles, I see one that lumps in with Otis with the money issues. Court filings are the only "papers" that would tell the accurate story of who is named specifically in each of the allegations. You can't pick the one newspaper article that says what you want to see, and claim that is the only accurate TRUTH. When I see court filings that name Otis as one of the defendants over the money issues, I will then agree that Bo is suing Otis over the money. Right now WE can't tell for sure one way or another and its a waste of time arguing about who shot nelly in the belly. THAT said...one of my initial thoughts has always been... hmmmm, you change a light bulb 15 times and they keep burning out before their expected life span...anybody ever think of checking the socket they're getting screwed into ( by)?  EXCUSES,EXCUSES....ALL THESE EXCUSES! Fact is the man's name is on the document. NO EXCUSES! |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 23, 2003 14:11:22 GMT -5
Otis name is mentioned sometimes because he has legal use of the name Temptations. And the operative word here is "use" not ownership. Motown legally owns the name "Temptations". When the Tempts went to Atlantic in the '70's, Motown let them take the name with them, but Motown still owned it. Why? Unlike Eddie who sold all his rights to his material, etc. when he left Motown, Otis always remained tied to Motown. In his book Otis says that when he felt Motown was cheating them, he looked around and talked to artists with other companies, and they all said, "You have it much better at Motown." And then Otis added something to the effect that before he jumped out of an airplane, he always wanted to make sure he had a parachute. Nuperman has a very good point. Richard was with the Temptations over 20 years. He wanted to become a Temptation so badly he hung around, singing behind the curtains, etc. until he became one. He was the spokesman (like Ron today) on stage. I suspect he simply became tired of touring and left, but then discovered he couldn't make any money on his own. And ten years later he is whining. Why? Ah, money again. As Nuperman said, "If he wanted a group, why didn't he just call it the Distants," as he did at one time. Why don't any of these former Tempts call themselves by another name? And the TRUTH is they cannot make as much money by using their name alone or another name. It's only when they tag "former Temptation" on themselves that people pay money to hear them. And as Maurice Watts said even if they use their own name, the place where they are singing advertise them as "former Temptations" or maybe not even former and the MC introduces them as a "Temptation". Back in the '50's people worked for the U.S. government at a decent job and only made $2,000 a year, that's for a whole year. Now I don't see people suing the government because the same job pays at least $40,000 a year now. Jane,how could Otis remain tied to Motown,when the group went to Atlantic Records? This don't make sense. This is not why Otis is being sued. What you fail to realize is that the ex members were owed monies from their performance days..nothing like the example that you tried to provide. Contracts were signed. This is nothing like the off the wall US Government job comment you made...which has nothing to do with this subject! |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Nov 23, 2003 22:05:07 GMT -5
EXCUSES,EXCUSES....ALL THESE EXCUSES! Fact is the man's name is on the document. NO EXCUSES! awwwww, Mike...here I thought you were really interested in TRUTH :crying :crying Maybe you've had the good fortune never have been involved in a lawsuit with multiple allegations... |
|
|
|
Post by selfishreasons on Nov 23, 2003 22:07:02 GMT -5
Listen, Mike has been involved with everything. :laughing
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 24, 2003 3:22:59 GMT -5
awwwww, Mike...here I thought you were really interested in TRUTH  Maybe you've had the good fortune never have been involved in a lawsuit with multiple allegations... No,I've led a sheltered life. I've never even seen a lawyer that I am aware of. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Nov 26, 2003 17:00:57 GMT -5
:faint: Now Aba, I have heard that you in fact sing very well, and I doubt that the Temps would let you up on stage with them if you sounded terrible. In fact, I have heard that you sing love songs all the time...who's bluffing, big Guy? |
|
