PDA

View Full Version : Purple Haze Records Ltd. attack Experience Hendix LLC



purple jim
12-23-10, 02:43 PM
This press release has just been made available by Lawrence Miller and Purple Haze Records:

"Press Release to all Lawyers, the Media, the Music and Entertainment Business

Experience Hendrix LLC verses Purple Haze Records Ltd in 2005 and 2006 and the truth.

If you want to see how the Court was deceived, the numerous acts of perjury and how Experience Hendrix LLC perverted the course of Justice see the attached.

If anyone has been involved in litigation with Experience Hendrix LLC the evidence we have will prove they have no claim to Performer's Rights for Jimi Hendrix as they do not exist. Reed Wasson and his UK Lawyer Gardiner were aware that Jimi Hendrix was at all times a resident of the United States a Country that does not recognise Performer's Rights, is not a signatory to the Rome Convention and have no reciprocal protection.

The Court was deceived.

Experience Hendrix LLC did not claim Copyright or Recording Rights or any other music right because they will never ever be able to show a chain of title.

Under New York Intestate Law they are not the successors in title to the Estate of Jimi Hendrix.

If you are interested in receiving the true chain of title please contact us.To anyone that has been involved in litigation with Experience Hendrix LLC this is your opportunity to issue proceedings against Experience Hendrix LLC and their Lawyers and reclaim your money back with damages and costs. We will provide you with the fresh new evidence to support the above on request.
You will see the Judgement of the Honourable Mr Hart and what he termed as FLAWS in Experience Hendrix LLC title to the rights.

So you are aware Jimi Hendrix was signed to an "EXCLUSIVE RECORDING ARTIST'S CONTRACT", that was assigned to Yameta with the consent of Jimi Hendrix.

If you require detailed information please feel free to contact us."


CONTACT: yametaco@yahoo.com (yametaco@yahoo.com)

Dolly Dagger
12-23-10, 02:53 PM
Yameta. Isn't that (or was) Jefferies' off shore tax shelter?

purple jim
12-23-10, 03:09 PM
Yameta. Isn't that (or was) Jefferies' off shore tax shelter?

I also got this information:

Yameta was a Bahamian company, 90% of which belonged to John Hillman, the director of the another Bahamas based company called Caicos). Chandler, Jeffrey and Hendrix were simply Yameta employees.


In 1976, Yameta was disolved and all assets aswell as publishing rights to the music were retained Hillman who in fact had no experience or interest in the music industry and was not fully aware of the marketing potential of the legacy of Jimi Hendrix. As Hendrix sales dwindled in the late 70s and after serious illness, Hillman had put his dealings with the rights to Hendrix's music aside.

In 2004, John Hillman came re-assessed his music rights and assigned the rights to Purple Haze Records.


Purple Haze Records has nothing whatsoever to de with the so called Mike Jeffrey Estate (which was/is administrated by Ed Chalpin) who had put CDs on the Radioactive and Reclamation Record labels.

MourningStar
12-23-10, 05:35 PM
... If you require detailed information please feel free to contact us."


CONTACT: yametaco@yahoo.com (yametaco@yahoo.com)heh heh,.. any business entity with a '@yahoo.com' email cannot be taken seriously.


jerk1

dino77
12-23-10, 05:55 PM
heh heh,.. any business entity with a '@yahoo.com' email cannot be taken seriously.


jerk1

:p

univibs
12-23-10, 05:57 PM
heh heh,.. any business entity with a '@yahoo.com' email cannot be taken seriously.


jerk1

yes, but maybe after all the wishes and prayers it's the First ray of the new rising sun, the sun who'll make a sunset on EH LLC.gun1

ranasakawa
12-23-10, 09:43 PM
This press release has just been made available by Lawrence Miller and Purple Haze Records:

"Press Release to all Lawyers, the Media, the Music and Entertainment Business

Experience Hendrix LLC verses Purple Haze Records Ltd in 2005 and 2006 and the truth.

If you want to see how the Court was deceived, the numerous acts of perjury and how Experience Hendrix LLC perverted the course of Justice see the attached.

If anyone has been involved in litigation with Experience Hendrix LLC the evidence we have will prove they have no claim to Performer's Rights for Jimi Hendrix as they do not exist. Reed Wasson and his UK Lawyer Gardiner were aware that Jimi Hendrix was at all times a resident of the United States a Country that does not recognise Performer's Rights, is not a signatory to the Rome Convention and have no reciprocal protection.

The Court was deceived.

Experience Hendrix LLC did not claim Copyright or Recording Rights or any other music right because they will never ever be able to show a chain of title.

Under New York Intestate Law they are not the successors in title to the Estate of Jimi Hendrix.

If you are interested in receiving the true chain of title please contact us.To anyone that has been involved in litigation with Experience Hendrix LLC this is your opportunity to issue proceedings against Experience Hendrix LLC and their Lawyers and reclaim your money back with damages and costs. We will provide you with the fresh new evidence to support the above on request.
You will see the Judgement of the Honourable Mr Hart and what he termed as FLAWS in Experience Hendrix LLC title to the rights.

So you are aware Jimi Hendrix was signed to an "EXCLUSIVE RECORDING ARTIST'S CONTRACT", that was assigned to Yameta with the consent of Jimi Hendrix.

If you require detailed information please feel free to contact us."


CONTACT: yametaco@yahoo.com (yametaco@yahoo.com)

Very classy Yametaco @ Yahoo . com , sure seems (not) like a genuine company to me.

Ezy Rider
12-24-10, 01:02 AM
If Purple Haze Records is not Hillman or Ed Chalpin, then who is it? Any link for further info?

purple jim
12-24-10, 01:42 AM
The head of Purple Haze Records is Lawrence Miller.

trampledunderfoot
12-24-10, 01:54 AM
Wankers. They also misspelt "versus."


yes, but maybe after all the wishes and prayers it's the First ray of the new rising sun, the sun who'll make a sunset on EH LLC.gun1

I doubt it. peek1

dino77
12-24-10, 05:53 AM
That e-mail is spam, really. Looks like some trickster (who?) is looking for financial backers, cause they have none?

purple jim
12-27-10, 11:20 AM
No, Miller means business. In January he will be taking out a Private Prosecution against Gardiner and Wasson in a British Magistrates Court. I got this advance press release today:

http://www.noob.fr/upload/afbd1_press.jpg (http://www.noob.fr)

Fenders Fingers
12-27-10, 11:33 AM
I also got this information:

Yameta was a Bahamian company, 90% of which belonged to John Hillman, the director of the another Bahamas based company called Caicos). Chandler, Jeffrey and Hendrix were simply Yameta employees.


In 1976, Yameta was disolved and all assets aswell as publishing rights to the music were retained Hillman who in fact had no experience or interest in the music industry and was not fully aware of the marketing potential of the legacy of Jimi Hendrix. As Hendrix sales dwindled in the late 70s and after serious illness, Hillman had put his dealings with the rights to Hendrix's music aside.

In 2004, John Hillman came re-assessed his music rights and assigned the rights to Purple Haze Records.


Purple Haze Records has nothing whatsoever to de with the so called Mike Jeffrey Estate (which was/is administrated by Ed Chalpin) who had put CDs on the Radioactive and Reclamation Record labels.

Well that's one way of looking at it I guess.

dino77
12-27-10, 03:08 PM
So parents do not interit their children under NY State law???
That's odd. More likely they are referring to Tamika Carpenter, but she is not legally recognised as Jimi's child.

Sharpstat
12-27-10, 03:45 PM
So parents do not interit their children under NY State law???
That's odd. More likely they are referring to Tamika Carpenter, but she is not legally recognised as Jimi's child.


I'm sorry I'm confused? Who is "they" that you're referring to? Where is his daughter Tamika's name mentioned in that post? I see Janie's name. Tamika officially wasn't acknowledged but didn't Al send her money when he was alive? Along with the picture of them together.

dino77
12-27-10, 06:46 PM
I'm sorry I'm confused? Who is "they" that you're referring to? Where is his daughter Tamika's name mentioned in that post? I see Janie's name. Tamika officially wasn't acknowledged but didn't Al send her money when he was alive? Along with the picture of them together.


They: Purple Haze records. The paragraph from Purple Jim's page...explains the Carpenter connection:

"However, in the early 70's, the control of the estate was seized by Jimi's father Al Hendrix with the help of Jimi's attorney Henry Steingarten and subsequently another attorney Leo Branton. In keeping with American law, the Estate should have gone to Tamika Laurice James Hendrix, Jimi's daughter!"

So I was simply for asking if someone is versed well enough in "American law" to disprove or approve the inheritance claim, which seems to be that parents weren't sole beneficiaries in New York at the time.

Ezy Rider
12-27-10, 10:22 PM
And so, what is the relationship between Purple Haze Records and Tamika?

purple jim
12-28-10, 04:27 AM
And so, what is the relationship between Purple Haze Records and Tamika?

None at all. They have talked but there are not connected in any business or legal way. I'm not sure whether Tamika would have a case because she was born out of wedlock. I have no idea about law matters.
That only concerns the rights to the Estate, Purple Haze's issue is about the music rights.

johngolby
12-28-10, 04:43 AM
purple jim - would a law suit from Purple Haze Records effectively stop Experience Hendrix in their tracks as in no releases for awhile ? Some of these cases grind on for ages.

purple jim
12-28-10, 05:10 AM
purple jim - would a law suit from Purple Haze Records effectively stop Experience Hendrix in their tracks as in no releases for awhile ? Some of these cases grind on for ages.

It could put things on hold for a while. If not EH could continue releasing materiel until the case comes up, which as you say can take a long time.

I came across this interesting article by Vic Lewin and Tony Brown on Wallyrus' site:

"Jimi's Kids"
http://wallyrus.tripod.com/JimisKids.html

dino77
12-28-10, 07:59 AM
A humble guess is nothing will happen with this "lawsuit"; the evidence seems thin, the presentation quite amateurish and EH have more money for lawyers (from our pockets!).

But why would we want Purple Haze Records to get the rights to Jimi's music? All they have issued is shoddy packages with material taken from other bootlegs.
Would they pay Jimi's sidemen or Leon royalties?
Would they not sell merchandise (coffee mugs, panties...)?


Just saying Janie is what irritates a lot of people when it comes to Experience Hendrix. Otherwise they do pretty good work.

highwaychild
12-28-10, 10:30 AM
But why would we want Purple Haze Records to get the rights to Jimi's music? All they have issued is shoddy packages with material taken from other bootlegs.

For the most part, I think the PH releases are quite well done, in terms of both sound quality and packaging. In fact the RAH set ("An Evening With The JHE") is just about the best live Jimi I've ever heard. Now, I know PH didn't create the recording but they definitely did a great job mastering it and I'd guess their source was something pretty close to the master tape (maybe a safety copy?)

I stop short of saying PH should have the rights, but I do take (friendly) exception to the "shoddy" statement above. There are loads of boots in the shoddy category but (most of) the PH stuff isn't - in my opinion.

manfree
12-28-10, 11:31 AM
I`d go as far as saying I thought their covers were pretty good

Fenders Fingers
12-28-10, 02:45 PM
I'd go as far as saying, well produced bootlegs.
I'll add that they (PH or any other name) that they have offered up nothing we as collectors don't already have access to elsewhere in just as good quality.
It is interesting to hear the simplistic take some have of this issue(s).

ranasakawa
12-28-10, 08:57 PM
I'd go as far as saying, well produced bootlegs.
I'll add that they (PH or any other name) that they have offered up nothing we as collectors don't already have access to elsewhere in just as good quality.
It is interesting to hear the simplistic take some have of this issue(s).


The Jimi Hendrix legacy is a legal, shitty mess.

Fenders Fingers
12-28-10, 10:17 PM
The Jimi Hendrix legacy is a legal, shitty mess.

+ 1 million :-)

kdion11
12-29-10, 02:15 PM
The Jimi Hendrix legacy is a legal, shitty mess.


KD: And of course could be the most litigized musical estate ever

A mess indeed. A complete written history / book detailing all the
to and fro' over the years would make an entertaining read.

Hell, just the RAH legal history could fill a good size book.

jfjfjf
12-30-10, 01:54 PM
All the informations have been important to me. I thank you all very much!

Doron
12-30-10, 02:15 PM
I came across this interesting article by Vic Lewin and Tony Brown on Wallyrus' site:

"Jimi's Kids"
http://wallyrus.tripod.com/JimisKids.html

I read it but didn't get it.

If Jimi had two kids, why were they left out completely like this? can anyone explain in simple english, please?

dino77
12-30-10, 02:34 PM
I read it but didn't get it.

If Jimi had two kids, why were they left out completely like this? can anyone explain in simple english, please?

One reason is blood tests were never carried out during Jimi's lifetime (though that page mentions one from the army). IE he didn't provide a blood sample. So the children were never recognised legally, at least not in the US.

Sharpstat
12-30-10, 04:06 PM
One reason is blood tests were never carried out during Jimi's lifetime (though that page mentions one from the army). IE he didn't provide a blood sample. So the children were never recognised legally, at least not in the US.


Blood tests to determine paternity to be exact! We know that there's got to be some of Jimi's DNA somewhere? Hair from his hat,coat,toothbrush.

breathe
01-12-11, 03:11 PM
Surely someone has some of his hair...

manfree
01-12-11, 04:27 PM
I think Janie would just LOVE that idea, I`m sure She could supply some DNA
Wouldn`t you like to help prove Jimi had some kids to carry on the natural blood line?
Er.....Janie............Janie........Are you there??!..............Anybody?

kdion11
01-13-11, 06:58 PM
Blood tests to determine paternity to be exact! We know that there's got to be some of Jimi's DNA somewhere? Hair from his hat,coat,toothbrush.


KD: Actually, some of Jimi's blood dropped on an album cover after
he cut it on a broken wine glass. The album was part of the collection
from the Brook Street flat and is now in the hands of The Experience Music Project / Paul Allan.

The album cover could have been Love's "Da Capo" given to Jimi and
signed by all the members of Love apparently.

kdion11
01-13-11, 06:59 PM
I read it but didn't get it.

If Jimi had two kids, why were they left out completely like this? can anyone explain in simple english, please?


KD: Greed ?

RobWats67
01-16-11, 03:59 PM
KD: Greed ?

That's exactly what it is.

bandit
01-16-11, 05:49 PM
http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Experience%20Hendrix%20v%20Purple%20Haze%20ChD%202 4%20Feb%202005.pdf

heres the court writ.

bandit
01-16-11, 06:00 PM
and something that has come out of this court case
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199263394/resources/updates/1108_ch06.pdf
also same time of trial, a small article.
Hendrix performers sue over performance rights
http://www.harbottle.com/hnl/upload/newsletters/93.pdf

bandit
01-16-11, 06:07 PM
http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/news/events_files/Mr_Justice_Arnolds_paper.pdf
and some words on copywrit music.

funkydrummer
01-17-11, 06:04 AM
KD: Actually, some of Jimi's blood dropped on an album cover after
he cut it on a broken wine glass. The album was part of the collection
from the Brook Street flat and is now in the hands of The Experience Music Project / Paul Allan.

The album cover could have been Love's "Da Capo" given to Jimi and
signed by all the members of Love apparently.

Not quite...Actually the blood stained cover is now owed by Jeff Gold.
album in question is Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited...
See here
http://recordmecca.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-i-had-to-pick-one-artist-whos-music.html

Dolly Dagger
01-17-11, 09:05 AM
I think Janie would just LOVE that idea, I`m sure She could supply some DNA
Wouldn`t you like to help prove Jimi had some kids to carry on the natural blood line?
Er.....Janie............Janie........Are you there??!..............Anybody?

There is a bloodline, JD Sunqvist (sic)

purple jim
01-17-11, 11:57 AM
There is a bloodline, JD Sunqvist (sic)

Hell's bells, this post is beginning to sound like:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7779/jimicode.jpg (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/jimicode.jpg/)

RobbieRadio
01-17-11, 02:24 PM
Will this battle of 'Sharks" ever end?

dino77
01-17-11, 04:32 PM
That's hilarious, PJ. Did you make that cover?

purple jim
01-17-11, 05:26 PM
Yep. Just fell into place.

crazee_canuck
03-09-13, 01:58 PM
Interesting...

$ curl -I purplehazerecords.com
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Cache-Control: private
Content-Type: text/html
Location: http://www.yourdiscountshoes.co.uk/index.asp
Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDQSSRABAR=LANNFAMBFCJJKOEBOOGLLJMO; path=/
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:43:27 GMT
Connection: close


and




Domain Name: PURPLEHAZERECORDS.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS DOMAINS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
Name Server: ULTRA101.UK2.NET
Name Server: ULTRA102.UK2.NET
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 14-apr-2012
Creation Date: 16-apr-2010
Expiration Date: 16-apr-2013

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:59:34 UTC <<<

purple jim
03-09-13, 02:14 PM
What does that mean and how did you detect it?

crazee_canuck
03-09-13, 05:45 PM
What does that mean and how did you detect it?


I'm not sure what it means, per se, other than a "legit" record company would never have their domain redirect to a shoe store.

I was looking for info on a boot and the site I was on had a link pointing to purplehazerecords.com. I clicked it and was sent to http://www.yourdiscountshoes.co.uk/index.asp. What I copy and pasted was the same thing but using the command 'curl' in Linux.

The domain registration is just from a simple whois lookup which can be done using the whois command in Linux or http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=purplehazerecords.com&type=domain.

it's certainly the same "Purple Haze Records". When looking at the site from the Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20110201123449/http://www.purplehazerecords.com/index.asp) the page is redirected to http://web.archive.org/web/20110201123530/http://www.purplehazerecords.com/ekmps/shops/account_suspended.asp?username=yametacoltd

JimiRules
03-09-13, 07:01 PM
It could put things on hold for a while. If not EH could continue releasing materiel until the case comes up, which as you say can take a long time.

I came across this interesting article by Vic Lewin and Tony Brown on Wallyrus' site:

"Jimi's Kids"
http://wallyrus.tripod.com/JimisKids.html

Yes, I wrote that with Tony Brown's help. Some of the Hey Joe'ers know me as being a paralegal. Albeit not in some super-large firm in a major metro centre! But still I had access to court filings so went rummaging one day and found decisions on some Hendrix lawsuits. Wally asked me to write something and Tony assisted me with factual info and I wrote the article about the decision. I had forgotten asbout that wally piece until I just saw this! hahaha Kathy E helped me write another one about her being left out of ELL doc! LOLOL

Vic

JimiRules
03-09-13, 07:03 PM
KD: And of course could be the most litigized musical estate ever

A mess indeed. A complete written history / book detailing all the
to and fro' over the years would make an entertaining read.

Hell, just the RAH legal history could fill a good size book.

Hmmm, if I wasnt stoned most of my free time I'd write that book!

stplsd
04-01-13, 07:03 AM
I am not really interested in the actual 2007 case, apart from the sections that deal with Yameta and Hillman. And Etchingham’s farcical supporting evidence! A great pity it didn’t go into detail about the exact contractual nature of Jeffery and Chandler’s relationship to Yameta, as Hillman’s claims seem entirely questionable, but that was not part of this case. Clearly from the ‘Management’s, ie Yameta, 40%, Mike & Chas were the principal beneficiaries and therfore not simply employees as Hillman claims – as he attempts to also claim here with Jimi, only to be almost laughed out of court!
<O:p</O:p
This is the summing up of the verdict of the appeal court, by Lord Justice Jacob. It clearly rubbishes both Yameta’s previous and Hillman’s subsequent claim to title and copyright and upholds EH’s claim (again). It unswervingly upholds The Hon. Mr. Justice Park’s original verdict against the case made by Turner on behalf of Purple Haze Records.
<O:p</O:p
Turner’s arguments about the live Swedish recording, mostly seem to be based on his very narrow reading of the various acts concerned, when this was clearly not the intention when written. He had ignored the fact that the UK’s commitment to international treaties would be violated, if they were interpreted as he would like. He also argued in this fashion about whether the performer rights to live material, should continue to the inheritors when that performer was deceased.
<O:p</O:p
[49] This argument, if correct, would accept that
performer's rights exist in Jimi Hendrix’s live performances,
but would mean that the rights are not owned by EH, but rather
by Mr Hillman. It will be recalled that the chain of title on
which EH relies goes from Jimi Hendrix to his personal
representatives, and from the personal representatives (in the<O:p
person of Mr Leighton-Davis, the English administrator) to EH
(by the assignment dated 13 November 2000). The chain of
title on which Mr Hillman relies begins with the rights being
owned by Yameta, and continues with them passing to Mr
Hillman by an assignment made in a board resolution of
Yameta on 5 December 1975. In my judgment, however, that
chain of title does not stand up to analysis.
[50] The central thesis of the argument is that the contract
between Jimi Hendrix and Yameta dated 1 December 1966 was
a contract of employment, and that after the employment
terminated all rights arising from Jimi Hendrix’s services to the
employer continued to be owned by the employer, Yameta.
<O:p</O:p
66. So was Mr Hendrix an employee of Yameta? The agreement relied upon, dated 1st
December 1966, says:
1. The Performer [Hendrix] HEREBY APPOINTS the
Manager [Yameta*] to render and the Manager agrees to render
its services or the services of its employees or servants to use
its best endeavours in the promotion and furtherance of the
career and interest of the Performer in every branch medium
and form of the entertainment industry, and the Performer
agrees to render to the Manager his exclusive services in
respect of all activities of the Performer throughout the
world…… for a the period of four years … from the date
hereof.
<O:p</O:p
[*ie Jeffery/Chandler, I assume. Ed.]
<O:p</O:p
67. Clause 2 begins:
“As compensation for the services herein agreed to be rendered
the Performer agrees to pay to the Manager a sum equal to 40%
of all gross payments made to the Performer …”
<O:p</O:p
68. Park J said:
[52] The only tenable analysis of the agreement is that Jimi
Hendrix is appointing Yameta as his manager. It is true that
Yameta is his exclusive manager, and that he must accept and
perform the engagements which Yameta makes for him. But it
is still his manager, and he is not its employee. It is impossible
to analyse the provisions of the agreement so as fit the concept
of a contract of employment. I do not doubt that the flow of
money went from outside parties (such as concert promoters) to
Yameta and from Yameta to Jimi Hendrix, Yameta having
deducted its 40% commission on the way. But the payments<O:p
from Yameta to Jimi Hendrix were not payments of salary or<O:p</O:p
other remuneration from an employer to an employee: they
were payments from an agent accounting to its principal.<O:p</O:p
I think this is concise, elegant and entirely accurate. I cannot do better and there is no
point in trying.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
69. What I would add, however, is that this agreement clearly has nothing to do with<O:p</O:p
vesting rights in Yameta. The idea, for instance, that the copyrightin any musical<O:p</O:p
work composed by Jimi Hendrix would belong to Yameta is absurd. The same must<O:p</O:p
go for rights in performances. This was a point noticed by Hart J [in another related case. Ed.].<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p70. In the face of this, Mr Turner placed reliance on a witness statement by Jimi<O:p</O:p
Hendrix’s girlfriend at the time. Park J dealt with this point as follows:<O:p</O:p
[54] … She gives evidence of a meeting with a representative
of Yameta (a Mr Jeffrey) at Mr Jeffrey’s apartment. She says<O:p</O:p
that she remembers Mr Jeffrey saying to Jimi Hendrix that he<O:p</O:p
(Jimi Hendrix) would be employed by Yameta. To Jimi<O:p</O:p
Hendrix it was a case of ‘Whatever you say.’I cannot attach<O:p</O:p
weight to this. It is wildly improbable that Miss Etchingham
<O:p</O:pcan reliably remember anything of that sort forty years after the
time when she was a young woman living with Jimi Hendrix,<O:p</O:p
sharing the sort of life he led, and most unlikely to have any<O:p</O:p
interest in or understanding of the contractual arrangements for<O:p</O:p
his activities. In any case, I do not see any conceivable basis<O:p</O:p
on which there can be extracted from the evidence either a
representation made by Jimi Hendrix to Yameta that he would<O:p</O:p
be employed by it, or a convention accepted between Jimi<O:p</O:p
Hendrix and Yameta to that effect, and reliance on that<O:p</O:p
representation or convention by Yameta to its detriment. But<O:p</O:p
that is what would be needed to found an estoppel which would<O:p</O:p
be binding against Jimi Hendrix or his successors. In this<O:p</O:p
connection EH is the successor of Jimi Hendrix.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
71. Mr Turner says it was wrong for the Judge to reject this evidence on a summary<O:p</O:p
judgment application and that a trial at which it can be tested is necessary. I do not<O:p</O:p
see why. Nor can I see any fault in the Judgesaying, as he in effect did, that even if<O:p</O:p
proved it would not provide a defence. It is wholly unrealistic to think that the conversations allegedly remembered amount to a variation of the actual written<O:p</O:p
agreement or could provide an estoppel. Indeed if you take the word “employment”<O:p</O:p
in a purely general sense they are consistent with the written agreement.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
72. That is sufficient to dispose of this point. But there are other reasons too, set out in<O:p</O:p
Park J’s judgment, for instance the insuperable difficulty of the 1968 agreement<O:p</O:p
which terminated Yameta’s rights with effect from 31st December 1967. It is not<O:p</O:p
necessary to go to them separately, though I agree with all of them.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
73. So in my opinion Park J was right on all three points and this appeal should be<O:p</O:p
dismissed.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Agreed by:<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Lord Justice Toulson & Lord Justice Keene


http://www.5rb.com/docs/Experience%20Hendrix%20v%20Purple%20Haze%20CA%2023 %20May%202007.pdf


<O:p</O:p

purple jim
03-15-14, 02:27 PM
I got this news today from Lawrence Miller of PH Records.
Since their last encounter in the courts, Purple Haze Records claim to have obtained documents which prove that Experience Hendrix do not hold "Performer's Rights" to the music of Jimi Hendrix! THey are also accusing EH of perjury in the last legal encounter.
The claim has been approved by the High Court Off London:

http://i57.tinypic.com/2j19d15.jpg

Fenders Fingers
03-15-14, 03:12 PM
Thanks PJ :-)

Ezy Rider
03-15-14, 04:19 PM
EH "deceived the court" with "invented false evidence" and "perverted the course of justice" - oh my my

And what do the "performer's rights" entail?

purple jim
03-16-14, 05:09 AM
EH "deceived the court" with "invented false evidence" and "perverted the course of justice" - oh my my

And what do the "performer's rights" entail?

In a previous press statement PHR stated that EH only claimed to have "Performer's Rights". They didn't claim "Copyright" or "Recording Rights" because in order to do so, you have to prove "chain of title", something they can't do because they don't possess it (but Lawrence Miller does - following his aquisition of Yameta). However, as STPLSD pointed out in the post above, it remains to be seen how the court will interpret all of this.
Apparently the"Performer's rights" thing comes from the Rome Convention which the USA doesn't recognise, so normally EH can't use that argument.
EH obtained the "rights" only because of an out of court settlement (because they knew that they couldn't prove ownership). John Hillman (who owned Yameta was very ill and out of action at the time - he was also totally disconnected from the music biz).

BlackIrish55
03-16-14, 12:19 PM
PJ, informative post but to what end ?

Purple Haze Records has lost its multiple court proceedings against EH, to uphold a shady "management" contract. If I recall Yameta was a tax dodge set up by Jeffrey to avoid the high UK tax rates (90% ?) for the Animals and later for Jimi Hendrix (though as a US citizen it wouldn't have helped him as the IRS would have taxed him applicable US rates anywhere in the world), this was a standard UK tax dodge used by rock artists such as the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Marc Bolan, they are still trying to figure out who his money is going to well into the 21st century, where at least a $1 million dollars of Hendrix money went missing according to Jerry Hopkins Rolling Stone article.

John Hillman was just a "front" man for Jeffrey, who you would acknowledge set up Yameta, why would he become an "employee" of an organization he founded unless it benefited him as it clearly did under the tax laws. This "employee" seemed to have wide sway within Yameta, Hillman complained in "Setting the Record Straight" Jeffrey would make deposits and withdrawls from the accounts at his leisure,why was he not fired ? because Jeffrey was the owner. Didn't Jeffrey and Hendrix notify Yameta/Hillman in 1968 they were severing ties with the company around the time of the Chalpin settlement ? Hendrix reworked his contract with Warner/Reprise signing directly with the label as opposed to Warners leasing recordings from Yameta why didn't Mr. Hillman sue ? whatever his distance from the music business he had to know Hendrix was one of the biggest acts in rock music and he would lose a large amount of money if Jeffrey/Hendrix left and when Hendrix died where was Yameta ? Mike Jeffrey is listed as "Executive Producer" on every posthumous Hendrix album up to his death in 1973, the only album I've seen with a Yameta connection is a cassette of ABAL I purchased in 1984 that said "Produced by Chas Chandler A Yameta Production", so where was Hillman during this time Hendrix was still a viable commodity post 1970, he was selling records despite the myth Hendrix records disappeared, Mo Ostin wouldn't have turned to Alan Douglas in 1974 if there wasn't money to be made,Hillman should have been in every court from New York to Hong Kong to proclaim his "rights" if this was a reputable agreement, he did not oppose the estate/Jeffrey or Warners/Polydor during the intial posthumous Hendrix releases when he should have had a stronger legal standing especially since two "employees" (Chandler/Jeffrey) were still alive to testify that Yameta essentially owned Jimi Hendrix's creative output but this did not happen leading me to believe the contract was a sham wholly meant to avoid taxes not a true management contract.

PJ, you have a great site I visit every week, but you seem to think Lawrence Miller/Purple Haze Records would be better caretakers of Jimi's music than EH, that maybe true artistically.Hendrix would have wanted his family to be looked after,Al Hendrix wasn't the best dad but he was the only one Jimi knew he sent postcards and made phone calls from the road on his journey to fame, he wouldn't have done that if they didn't have an emotional connection. Al was Jimi's legal inheritor under US law, which should supersede a Bahamian tax haven scheme which Yameta was.

PJ, when you say John Hillman/Yameta or Lawrence Miller/PHR have legal rights over EH your not just denying Janie Hendrix, but Jimi Hendrix aswell you are saying Jimi doesn't own his creations not "Foxy Lady", not "VCSR" or not "Hey Baby", you are saying if Hendrix was alive he couldn't remix or package these songs to his liking because a Bahamian corporation owns them and Jimi was just an "employee" who clocked in wrote a song or created a riff then was given his weekly wage packet at the end of the week with no other connection to his achievement like a assembly line worker. EH has made mistakes in its care of the Hendrix archive like not releasing Winterland in toto, a limited release would have been great, but Yameta/PHR are just more of the same like PPX and Sue another instance of hustling Jimi (his level of complicity in these deals notwithstanding) alive or dead to make a buck. Miller is seemingly pursuing a nuisance suit against EH , why else purchase a moribund Bahamian corporation with an outdated "management" contract, why has he not filed in a Bahamian court that is where Yameta was based or a US court as Jimi was a citizen and New York was his place of residence ?

purple jim
03-16-14, 01:23 PM
Please understand that I don't support or condemn Lawrence Miller's claims and I haven't a clue about these types of legal rights battles. He has apparently obtained documents which support his case and prove that EH's lawyers lied in court. It's up to the courts to decide who is right or wrong in all this. It will be interesting to see what happens.
By the way, I was delighted when the Hendrix family got the rights and brought back Eddie Kramer, who has done a terrific job with them. Like many here, I do disagree with some creative decisions that have been made regarding Jimi's legacy but that has nothing to with my feelings about this case. Seeing as my site and this forum are devoted to Jimi's recorded works, the subject is an important one to follow and can't be ignored.

dino77
03-16-14, 02:07 PM
Thanks, PJ.
If nothing else it might help keep EH in line - with none of the shareholders having any blood relation to Jimi they're just one of many corporations hungry for Hendrix money whose fortune might be overturned by an impatient judge if they mishandle the legacy. Or it seems like that, I'm no lawyer ;)

BlackIrish55
03-16-14, 02:20 PM
PJ,

I'm not trying to attack you, along with CTT you have the most informative Hendrix site on the net, it's just those fans that say EH shouldn't control Jimi's catalogue, who else should ? complete strangers or hustlers like Chalpin, hell I would prefer Mike Jeffrey if he was still alive.:chargrined:

Ezy Rider
03-16-14, 02:51 PM
PJ,

I'm not trying to attack you, along with CTT you have the most informative Hendrix site on the net, it's just those fans that say EH shouldn't control Jimi's catalogue, who else should ? complete strangers or hustlers like Chalpin, hell I would prefer Mike Jeffrey if he was still alive.:chargrined:

I don't care who is at the helm, I just wish I could hear every single recording by Hendrix there is, especially those in the EH vault. sitting on them and milking them for decades to come won't help any of us.

purple jim
03-16-14, 03:32 PM
I don't care who is at the helm, I just wish I could hear every single recording by Hendrix there is, especially those in the EH vault. sitting on them and milking them for decades to come won't help any of us.

I think EH have been pretty generous through the years and have let loose plenty of recordings from the vault, with the box sets and Dagger releases. It all could have, should have been better compiled though.

outasight
03-16-14, 03:47 PM
I think EH have been pretty generous through the years and have let loose plenty of recordings from the vault, with the box sets and Dagger releases. It all could have, should have been better compiled though.

I think there are people at this very site who could do a better job at releasing new Hendrix product.....no doubt.

Fenders Fingers
03-16-14, 04:02 PM
I think EH have been pretty generous through the years and have let loose plenty of recordings from the vault, with the box sets and Dagger releases. It all could have, should have been better compiled though.

Could it? For you that's clear but any given release is aimed at a wider audience than just one person or one group of people. Maybe someone else would have made worse selections at a business level from your perspective and therefore you would be less happy.
i feel we are lucky thus far even if i do feel some things could have been better if EH had gone down the route of being leaders in their field rather than following the rest of the industry. then again that takes guts and an excellent level of business acumen.

purple jim
03-16-14, 05:03 PM
Could it?

Yes. I don't think "First Rays" works as a CD. I think too many very important songs are cluttered away on "South Saturn Delta". The purple box contained too many previously released tracks. "Valleys Of Neptune" was a mess, as was "PH&A" and "WCSB". The "Winterland" box was all over the place. "Hendrix In The West" was muddled,... etc.

outasight
03-16-14, 05:24 PM
Yes. I don't think "First Rays" works as a CD. I think too many very important songs are cluttered away on "South Saturn Delta". The purple box contained too many previously released tracks. "Valleys Of Neptune" was a mess, as was "PH&A" and "WCSB". The "Winterland" box was all over the place. "Hendrix In The West" was muddled,... etc.

Yes. And this isn't even mentioning the mixing and mastering, which in most cases could've been so much better.

Fenders Fingers
03-16-14, 05:36 PM
Yes. I don't think "First Rays" works as a CD. I think too many very important songs are cluttered away on "South Saturn Delta". The purple box contained too many previously released tracks. "Valleys Of Neptune" was a mess, as was "PH&A" and "WCSB". The "Winterland" box was all over the place. "Hendrix In The West" was muddled,... etc.

And your sure someone else would have done a better job? or more to the point, a job more suited to how you think it should have been?
sure, some glaring errors, winterland is a sore thumb clearly but the rest you list are more from your perspective.

you do highlight my point that there appears to be a lack of vision from EH, just another player with little vision and no business acumen.

stplsd
03-17-14, 06:04 AM
Yes. I don't think "First Rays" works as a CD. I think too many very important songs are cluttered away on "South Saturn Delta". The purple box contained too many previously released tracks. "Valleys Of Neptune" was a mess, as was "PH&A" and "WCSB". The "Winterland" box was all over the place. "Hendrix In The West" was muddled,... etc.

We all have our own choices, there's loads of discussion here at CTT on various threads devoted to this. Is it any more likely that another company would have made choices closer to your tastes? Worse choices could easily be made; eg Purple Haze Records and their off-shoots JH product which is basically trash.

stplsd
03-17-14, 06:13 AM
The claim has been approved by the High Court Off London:

It does not appear to have been "approved", merely noted that the claim has been entered - that is if the document is genuine; the spelling is atrocious;). And they are only claiming "performers rights" (ie it only pertains to recordings of "live" performances ie on stage, radio, tv - where not covered by other agreement between performer and broadcasting company) which seems bizarre as JH is the performer and all his rights, upon his death, transferred to his father, Al, including ownership of Bella Godiva, his publishing company (unless someone has different knowledge).

Whether this will actually come to trial, we will need to wait and see.