Below is the full text of the public filing of Jay Bennett vs. Jeff Tweedy sent in by reader ChgoDiver.
It's so vague that we still find ourselves siding with Tweedy on this one...
>
Below is the full text of the public filing of Jay Bennett vs. Jeff Tweedy sent in by reader ChgoDiver.
It's so vague that we still find ourselves siding with Tweedy on this one...
So...he's trying to get paid according to the terms of a 1995 contract which he didn't even sign (agree to) at the time it was written?
good luck with that one.
He might have a legit complaint in relation to the film, but I don't know what the rules would be on that. Its a documentary, right? Do "performers" in a documentary get paid--generally speaking?
In certain cases of documentaries, there are pre-drawn agreements for profit-sharing or other agreed-upon payments to the subjects, but it seems that he's calling Tweedy the "producer" of the film, when there's no indication that Tweedy held that title. Why wouldn't he go after the ACTUAL credited producers?
I've worked with Jay Bennett and in my personal opinion, I think he's a pompous asshole. I can only imagine what stupid incidents (by his lack of judgment) brought this on...
slickpoetry-
Umm...read number 11 again. This is pretty straight forward stuff. Tweedy is the asshole.
Um, that looks like Bennett is trying to hold Tweedy to an agreement BENNETT NEVER SIGNED.
Thanks, Tankboy. My point exactly.
If you read furthermore, you will see:
"and was subject to the terms and obligations of the agreement as if he has signed it. Moreover, the defendant held Bennett to the terms of the agreement..."
This isn't a used car lot. The guy was in the band (albeit, brand new to the band) and was held under the same arrangements everyone else was.
This isn't the first time Tweedy has lost this battle. Remember Ken Coomer? Maybe you don't. I'm eager to see the outcome.
I think you guys have been watching too much "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart". That was edited AFTER he was out of the band. Go Figure.
Bennett was fired in 2001. It's 2009. It just occurred to him that he was improperly compensated?
He is trying to bolster his settlement potential by including lost income from a film that the defendant did not produce.
This is extortion. Tweedy is in the position of having to defend himself in court where there is always the potential for an unfavorable outcome. Or he can limit his exposure to judgment and attorney fees by settling. He'll settle. Unfortunately anyone can sue anyone and reasonably expect compensation.
Imagine the bitterness involved in being fired from a band literally weeks before it achieved monumental critical and financial success.
Wonder if he regrets his "Remember all that blow in Amsterdam?" comment.