The Truth is Coming"

[cofi]

I have read this on freebird.com and some other forum, that claims that Henry and Monte are using the name "Outlaws" and taking advantage of the said name and what comes with it, like some money been paid to them in lieu
Anyway read on yourselfs,

These are posted on the said forums by Pete, (asb)


"The Truth is Coming"

I am in touch with Mary Thomasson, as you know, sadly, Hughie's widow. I have known her and Hughie for 25+ years. There are lots of non truths, hypothesis, speculation, and innuendo "floating" here. Although she is in a terrible situation currently, she has asked me to come directly to you, the fans, for support and understanding.

It seems that Monte, Henry, and some others are about to use the name "Outlaws", and have probably taken "down money" from some venues for same. Also note that John Gellman, trusted by Hughie to run the Merchandise, and turn the proceeds over to Hughie, or Mary, has mis allocated funds to Monte. He is part of this Farce. Entrusted by Hughie, it seems that at the moment he passed, some have chosen to steal, and use this as an opportunity to line their pockets.

MUCH more information and facts will be forthcoming.
I only PRAY that you all CARE!

He also says

I will be in touch with Mary and visa versa. She has granted me permission to post for her,

These are some of the questions asked of Mary by members,

Mary, according to a post by John Gellman, you are in control of the "Once an Outlaw" CD.

Is this true?
And if it is, are you working toward a distribution?

This is HT's last Outlaws work, and IMHO, and most of this board, the last Outlaws work period...

Mary's answer, as through asb (Pete)=

As per Mary T. She owns the master. Also for So-Low, which will be re-released.
The "Others Band" (just my words), wanted to cut three songs, and replace them with three others of their own.
Mary wants and IMHO has the right to keep Hughie's last work INTACT.

Of course, it will be released, but with the "theft" going on, Mary has her hands full, and her health is not the best.
Please, Prayers for her, and for a good outcome.

Pete

Another post i read was,
Is Mary Thommason saying conclusively that she is been stolen from does she conclusively denounce what Henry and Monte are doing,

Answer back,

Yes she is stating such,

John Gellman sent money that should have been sent to Mary to Monte instead,

She has hired Lawyers and is looking to stop this.

They did not even ask her,

and it also say's that HT mum's is disgraced and hurt worse than Mary is.



So the plot thickens, that what i think, also i think this could turn nasty and stupid, and cost folk,s a lot of money, and if it is true, (and it sure looks like it is) what a lot of us have been saying about Henry seem's true.

Well i think it's disgusting what Henry, Monte and Gellman and some others are doing, if Mary owns the Name "Outlaws", and they're going out using that name, and making money from it, it's a shit thing to do,

If you want to read more about it, go over to Freebird.com.

Thanks to Sylvia.

[jamman]

I've tried keeping out of all this, but man, after reading this, and reading the posting's on freebird, i think what Monte and Henry are doing is wrong, i cant belive that they'd stoop this low, and for Gellman to give Monte, Mary's money is pretty bad,

[punk]

This is sad. Unfortunately the name "Outlaws" isn't copyrighted, or trademarked. So anyone can use it.

www.freebyrd.org

Is this the link Cofi?

[punk]

Here's a quote from John Gellman I lifted from the ABB site. That was lifted from the freebyrd site. LOL. I'm not a member at freebryd.

I'm almost sorry I got tickets for the show. I'll have to walk in with my head kinda low. LOL

Newbie
Newbie



Joined: Dec 07, 2007
Posts: 6
Location: Hickory, NC

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: An overview from JB Reply with quote
I no longer serve as a spokesman for the Outlaws, and am no longer involved with the band’s business or web site, except as a photographer. Nevertheless, I am still interested in the band, and have been reading fans’ comments on various message boards. Even though I have said categorically that I would make no public comments about the Outlaws, and have gone so far as making Shermanesque statements and said that it would be a cold day in hell, etc, one should never say never. I would like to point out that Green Bay is surely hellish for the Seattle Seahawks and it was very cold there yesterday.

I have some opinions and insight that I would like to share, and the only thing stopping me was my own previous statements that I wouldn’t say anything. Call me a flip-flopper if you wish – I guess I am guilty. Let me repeat that I speak only for myself, not for the band or any current or former band members. I am certainly not trying to be provocative or add fuel to a fire. I will try to offer my perspective based on my long association with the band and my own business experience. So here goes.

I find the trend by some fans to always assume the worst about the intentions and motives of the new band to be disappointing. After all, the surviving members, and Henry Paul, are the people with whom Hughie chose to associate. I think it is ridiculous to assume that HT was such a bad judge of character that his handpicked associates would turn their backs on his interests and legacy as soon as he was gone, if ever.

Some fans are upset because they think Henry is taking advantage of the situation in order to get back into the Outlaws and take over. Nothing could be further from the truth. Monte asked Henry to rejoin and help lead the band because it is very unlikely that any new version of the Outlaws could even have a chance of success without his participation. Even with his participation, the viability and success of the new band is anything but assured. At best, it is a risky business venture.

I don’t think anyone doubts that the Outlaws will be a good band. All of the participants are making a substantial commitment of their own time and resources. We all must remember that a band is a small business, similar to any other small business in many ways. (Unless you are the Rolling Stones, in which case you are more like General Motors.) Like any small business, the partners are on the hook financially.

None of the participants has ever become rich from a career in the music business. They all have commitments and obligations. They all must continue to pay the mortgage, make other debt payments, and continue supporting their families. I think there is quite a difference between making business decisions on the basis of need and responsibility than on the basis of greed. Greed implies that one will try to accumulate more than is fair or reasonable, and that is simply not the case here.

Imagine that a partner in a small business dies unexpectedly. Is it reasonable to expect the remaining partners to shut down the business, go deeply in debt, face possible bankruptcy, and start over in their careers completely from scratch? I don’t think so. Neither is it reasonable to expect the business to stop production for a lengthy undetermined period of time as a tribute to the partner who died. What kind of partner would expect his survivors to go broke or out of business in tribute?

If the partner who died was a key person, who brought value to the business that was irreplaceable, it is reasonable for the remaining partners and associates to reorganize and bring someone into the business who can add value and increase the business’s chance for survival and success. Shouldn’t they be entitled to try to make a go of it, even if things will never be the same?

What about the deceased partner's widow? What is she entitled to, and what are her obligations? Are there things to which she may not be entitled? In my opinion, Mary Thomasson should receive everything to which she is entitled, which may not be everything she wants. I do not think she should be able to control the business future of Hughie's partners and associates.

Hughie was a 55 year old adult at the time of his unexpected death. By the time bread-winners reach middle age, we should all have come to terms with our mortality, and made provisions for our families in case something bad happens, and I assume Hughie did so. This is a key responsibility of any bread-winner. I do not think it is the responsibility of the surviving business partners and associates, who are not wealthy on their own, to provide things beyond what Hughie made provisions for. I think the surviving partners and associates have an obligation to treat Mary fairly and compassionately, and help where they can. I think Mary also has an obligation to treat the surviving partners and associates fairly and respectfully, and trust that Hughie made good choices in selecting his partners and associates, and that they will act in good faith, which I think they have, and will continue to do.

It is not uncommon for a widow who was not involved in the day-to-day operations of her husband’s business to be unaware of, or lack complete understanding of every business agreement that was made between her husband and his partners and associates. This is particularly true when the husband preferred to seal deals with a handshake, rather than committing everything to paper. Are Hughie’s partners and associates thieves and scoundrels? Of course not! In my opinion they are entitled to some trust and respect.

I think they are entitled to use the Outlaws name. Monte, Henry, and Chris have all been in past versions of the Outlaws. Although Hughie’s production company has trademarked certain specific logos, which the new band does not intend to use, the logos are technically service marks. No one owns the Outlaws name exclusively. It is too generic. Do a trademark search on the US PTO web site and you will find hundreds of trademarks containing the word Outlaws in full or in part. The original Outlaws steer head logo that was designed by Jeannie Paul and used on the first album was also trademarked at one time, but the mark has lapsed.

I do not know if Mary will ultimately endorse the new band or remain silent. If Mary withholds her public endorsement, fans should realize that she could have many reasons, which she is not obligated to explain publicly. There are two sides to every story. Being the widow of a respected and beloved bandleader does not necessarily make one right if there is a disagreement or dispute. Neither does being a surviving business partner. Additionally, if there is a disagreement, it is a private business matter, the details of which are not likely to be addressed in announcements to fans, because it is none of their damn business.

The same is true when it comes to band members. Neither David Dix nor Randy Threet have any obligation to publicly explain why they have chosen not to participate. In my opinion, it would be improper for the partners in the new band to discuss publicly the factors that led to those decisions, unless the individuals involved have authorized them to do so. It is a private personnel matter. Just because there are things that fans would like to know, does not make it any of their business.

In my opinion, fans should make their own judgments, based upon what they see and hear from the participants, not based on what they read in speculative message board threads written by other uninformed fans. If they have yet to see or hear anything from the participants, then it is too early to make a judgment. I do not mean to sound critical of the many message boards. They can be entertaining in their own right. It is good for fans to be able to express their opinions and be part of a community. Just don’t believe everything you read.

Some fans, who do not seem to know very much about the way the music business works, have basic misunderstandings about what can be accomplished by a new band. When a new band that is not a household name to begin with, is reformed after a change or period of inactivity, good bookings, if they can be made at all, must often be made several months in advance of the show date. In fact, bookings must be made so far in advance, that the reformed band might not even be completely assembled at the time the bookings are made. The promoters and venues who book the band, are taking a considerable risk, based upon their belief that the band will deliver. It would be nice if some of the fans had as much faith in the band as the promoters and venues do.

Why would a band in the process of reforming begin seeking bookings before the band is complete? There are a few reasons. First, and most obviously, it shortens the amount of time the band is without an income. Second, it may be necessary while recruiting prospective members, to show the prospective members that the band will be a going concern by a certain date in order to ensure their participation. Third, a band’s expenses during rehearsals are considerable, and the deposits paid by promoters can be used to offset some of those expenses.

In any business, it is occasionally necessary to get an order, and then figure out how to fill it. These guys are consummate professionals who are more than capable of selecting and rehearsing the repertoire that will be included in the new show. The same thing happened in 2005 when some dates were booked before the band was complete. It just wasn’t public knowledge like it is now, and Outlaws fans were not accustomed to being kept informed in the manner the Outlaws were able to accomplish over the last couple years.

No band can control everything a promoter does after the band is booked. This is because the promoter hires the band, not vice versa. The band can ask the promoter to say this or that, or not to say this or that, but really has no control. In the Internet age, with entertainment calendar web sites that are open for anyone to post a listing, the band has even less control. Some sites are so wide open that a disgruntled fan could even post a bogus listing, or bogus information about a real listing, just to embarrass a band.

There will be a new band photo within a matter of weeks. First it will be necessary for all of the band members to be in the same place at the same time, which has yet to happen. In 2005, a band photo was made during the first week of rehearsals, and the same will be true in 2008.

Even after a new photo is released, don’t be surprised if a promoter or venue occasionally uses an old photo. In 2005 through 2007, it was not uncommon for a promoter or venue to use a picture of the Outlaws that included Frank O’Keefe and Billy Jones, not to mention Henry after he left at the end of 2005. The band can only hope that a promoter uses the latest promotional materials, and react appropriately when out of date materials are used - and they will be - for sure.

Ultimately, the promoters who take a risk by booking the band are interested in their own success. And who can blame them? They do not particularly care if they may possibly offend the sensibilities of some fans if they mistakenly use an old picture or old text. For a hard core Outlaws fan, it is a very big deal indeed that the band will again be touring, whether you support it or not. For a promoter booking the band, it is just another booking. So don’t expect promoters to make special arrangements, and operate their business any differently than normal, just because HT died.

I hope all new promotional materials will be in place before the first show or shortly thereafter. I’m sure the Outlaws, who are temporarily operating on an unusually tight budget, will have everything in place as soon as they can.

I do not know what the set list will be, but I think the overall sound of the band will be in line with the first three albums. I do not think the new band will attempt to play many of the songs from Once An Outlaw, or to tour in support of its release. The new band has no control over the release of Once An Outlaw. That is up to Mary Thomasson and her advisors. I do think Once An Outlaw will be released, but it will stand on its own, and I think many will regard it as Hughie’s and the Outlaws’ finest studio album. It is certainly not a unique situation to have an album released posthumously and do very well without a supporting live tour.

Which of Hughie’s songs will the band play, and how will they handle GG&HT? Your guess is as good as mine. The only things I’m certain of are: 1.) Hughie wouldn’t have wanted his music to die with him, 2.) The new band will treat his musical legacy with the greatest respect, 3) The new band will pay every cent of every royalty that is due, and 4.) In addition to whatever she may receive from the new band, Mary Thomasson will benefit because the very existence of the Outlaws as a touring band will promote continuing sales of Hughie’s entire recorded catalog.

In 2005, before the beginning of the reunion tour, some fans questioned whether the reunited band would be the Outlaws, or a lame tribute act. Fans said that Billy’s shoes could never be filled - until they heard Chris Anderson play. Chris never tried to be Billy. He was just Chris, and no one could get enough. The band tried to succeed by bringing great music to the fans. I think they did. Don’t expect Billy Crain to try to be Hughie. Only Hughie could be Hughie, and he’s forever gone. I hope the reformed band will continue to bring great music to the fans. I think they will.

Fans are free to do whatever they wish. No one is being forced to buy a ticket or support the new band. If you no longer have a desire to support the Outlaws as a performing band, then don’t go. If you want to hear the new band, hopefully they will be appearing soon in a venue near you. If you want to hear Once An Outlaw, go buy it as soon as it is released, or come visit me in Hickory and I’ll play it for you. Hopefully you are all sharp enough to realize that the 2008 touring band is not the same band that recorded the album.

For those who are looking for something to get upset about, I would remind you that there is still a war in Iraq, Osama bin Laden is still alive, and people are still starving in Africa.

The Outlaws? What can I say? It’s Only Rock & Roll. (but I like it)

John

Last edited by JGphotos on Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:53 pm; edited 2 times in total

[/size][/color]

[jesse]

I understand all the points made in Gellman's post, but something still smells fishy to me.

[punk]

Has anyone done a search with the office of copyrites, or US PTO? It's public information. I'd like to see a link to where the "Outlaws" is trademarked.

www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm



This Sucks.

[cofi]

Punk:-

I'm almost sorry I got tickets for the show. I'll have to walk in with my head kinda low. LOL

No M8, you go and check it out, you paid for the ticket's, use them,
Dont forget to take some photos yeah

I bet it wont be the same as the last time you saw them, but you got to check them out for yourself.

[sparky]

Wow, i cant belive that they're all so bitter against each other,

Is Henry and Monte so bitter against HT and his good wife Mary, that they even considerd going out as the "Outlaws" without talking to her and other interested parties, in the Outlaw camp,
That they've just taken over the Outlaws, and said we are now the Outlaws, and as Gellman say's,

No one owns the Outlaws name exclusively. It is too generic. Do a trademark search on the US PTO web site and you will find hundreds of trademarks containing the word Outlaws in full or in part.

and we will do the shows with or without the new CD, as Gellman Quoted,

but I think the overall sound of the band will be in line with the first three albums. I do not think the new band will attempt to play many of the songs from Once An Outlaw, or to tour in support of its release.

I like so many, first thought that, that what the new Outlaws was going out and playing these shows and tour for, to sell and support the new CD
I didnt realise it was to pay for their home,s and to pay their bills

[jesse]

I like so many, first thought that, that what the new Outlaws was going out and playing these shows and tour for, to sell and support the new CD
I didnt realise it was to pay for their home,s and to pay their bills

To promote the new CD was the only way I could justify them continuing on. Randy Threet and Chris Anderson may need the $$ (Threet's not even gonna be part of this farce), but the other guys should still be getting royalties from the back catalog and should've saved up from the tours they did back in their heyday. None of them seemed to need the Outlaws to make mortgage payments from 1996-2005 when Hughie was with Lynyrd Skynyrd.

[punk]

From what i understand, David Dix, and Randy Threet didn't want anything to do with it. I'm losing a little respect for Chris Anderson for going along with it.

Sooner or later the lawyers will straighten it out. But, Either way, the Outlaws name is soiled.

I have another question. Did anyone validate that the person speaking for Mary (asb pete) actually knows her? Or is he/she just someone spreading rumors? I need real proof.

Dont forget to take some photos yeah [image]

I'll try. If I go.