Madeleine Peyroux Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > Madeleine
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedGot Truth On My Mind

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Byron View Drop Down
New Member
New Member

Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
  Quote Byron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2005 at 7:05pm
Can't really improve on or add much to Amelie's statement. Very important point that the larger evils are upon us. Energy lost here in this ongoing wrangle is lost for that larger fight. If it can't be settled out of court, best to rest the arguments until that time. We need to be alert for these larger issues. They are not coming. They are here.
Back to Top
willgalison View Drop Down
New Member
New Member

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25
  Quote willgalison Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2005 at 5:32am

You are right. I was wrong to mention the momentous
events of this past week in refernce to this discussion. I have
removed that reference from my post.

Despite having paraphrased your "haven't we
all?" statement , all the other quotes in my posts are verbatim,
and the original sources available to anyone who would iike to
see them.

Re Madi's emails, I will continue to counter devastating false
accusations with embarrassing true facts.

Finally, GYOMM would not be available at all if I had not
brought Madi & co to federal court at tremendous expense to
all concerned. It was only in front of the judge that Madi
admitted that she was not the sole owner of GYOMM, which
allowed me to find a distributor.

Apart from announcing the website of documents, I will refrain
from writing to this forum again unless compelled to defend or
clarify my position.

Thanks all.


Edited by willgalison
Back to Top
judith View Drop Down
New Member
New Member

Joined: July 06 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
  Quote judith Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2005 at 5:43pm

I had hoped to keep out of this discussion, but I simply cannot let your post go unanswered. Mr. Galison is a gentleman not to respond more fully and I commend his restraint.

Mr. Galison begins his posting by specifically stating that the offenses against him “pale in comparison” to some other crimes.  He correctly states that the impulses behind all evil acts are similar, regardless of their scale.  One can say that domestic abuse, for example, pales in comparison to the events of 9/11, but the impulse behind these acts are the same; the objectification and abuse of one or more human being by another. The scale of  9/11 does not lessen the damage to a battered woman or mitigate the batterer's guilt. In fact, the greatest evils always develop out of lesser ones that go unchecked.

You defend Rounder and Mr. Greenburg as “simply trying to have exclusive promotion rights of the Madeleine Brand - which happens all the time in the music industry”.  Are you really saying that their actions are excusable because their motivation is simple or because they happen all the time?

I must say, that is idiocy. Many horrible crimes have simple motivations. Many horrible crimes happen all the time. It is neither the motivation nor the frequency of actions that make them evil, it is the means.

Falsely accusing a person of a crime such as physical abuse is particularly heinous for the reasons Suzelliott explained, among many others. It can destroy a person’s professional and personal life, putting them under a shadow of suspicion and disdain for the rest of their lives.

If Mr. Galison physically abused Ms. Peyroux, he should be in mandatory rehabilitation or in prison.

If Mr. Greenburg falsely accused Mr. Galison of physical abuse simply to intimidate and disgrace him for the sake of profit, he should be in rehabilitation or prison and he should certainly be disbarred immediately. 

I don’t know if you have either a reputation or a profession,  but if someone in your field falsely accused you of say, child molestation, and published this accusation amongst your peers, you would not say this allegation is “relatively true” or “relatively false".  You would not say it is a “matter of perspective”. You would do everything in your power to discredit them and redeem your reputation. My goodness, you raised a fuss because Mr. Galison paraphrased one sentence of your posting. I can only imagine what you would do if someone accused you of a serious crime!

Mr. Greenburg and Ms. Peyroux continue to assert that Mr. Galison is guilty of abuse, and presumably continue to spread this accusation. The only reason they would hesitate from “warning” people about Mr. Galison is that they know they will be held to account for false accusations.

Rounder used this website to discredit Mr. Galison and the record you are enjoying. It is only appropriate that Mr. Galison should use the same venue to defend himself. Posting Ms. Peyroux’s correspondence is an effective way to counter Mr. Greenburg’s allegations.  To me, they actually put Ms. Peyroux in a more sympathetic light as they reveal her appreciation of Mr. Galison and at least the remnants of a conscience. They also reaffirm my conviction that the accusations of abuse are entirely contrived and malicious.

Madeleine’s true friends will counsel her to do the moral, honest thing, and to strive to get her out of serious trouble and disgrace, even if this requires public reprimand and embarrassment. Mr. Galison's friends will do the same.

When Mr. Galison wrote “where will they stop”, he was implying the obvious and ominous. If Mr. Greenburg’s law firm and Rounder are willing to destroy<
Back to Top
Amelie View Drop Down

Joined: July 06 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15
  Quote Amelie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2005 at 8:52pm
William,   thanks for amending your post.   Although I follow your line of
argument that all perpetrators of crimes are individuals who fail to take
responsibility for their action and pursue their own agenda's at the cost
and injury of others - I will never be able to make comparisons here
between the action of gross violations of human rights and effectively
mass murder (which was ther content of your original post) and the action
of lawyers and commercial record companies suing over rights to
distribute - which from my understanding of your postings was the
original nature of this lawsuit. It may have taken a slightly different
direction now. I guess this is where we may agree to disagree and where
you and I will have different perspectives on this.

In the meantime congratulations on the recent reviews of GYOMM which
you recently posted. All well deserved.

Amicably - Amelie
Back to Top
Amelie View Drop Down

Joined: July 06 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15
  Quote Amelie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2005 at 9:56pm

I too did not really want to become drawn into yet more discussions here.
However, given the time you have taken I feel obliged to respond.

Firstly, it seems that perhaps you did not read the posts at the time they
were originally posted. My response was to William’s original post last
Friday when he made reference and drew a parallel with the Terrorist
Bomb attacks in London. I pointed out (as you read) that these events
were not comparable by any stretch of the imagination to the acts of
corporate giants trying to monopolise marketing rights etc of the
Madeleine brand. Surely you must agree with this. William seemed to be
in agreement and amended his post accordingly. This is the text you are
able to read today.

I find your post interesting as in many respects it demonstrates clearly
the very point I was trying to make – that interpretation of the truth is
relative in that it very much depends on context and perception. You
read my own post and quoted me as “defending rounder” and making “a
fuss” because William paraphrased one of my sentences and you refer to
Madeleine’s potential demise if she follows “my advice”.   I do not defend
Rounder in my post (that was your interpretation), nor did I make a fuss, I
simply made an illustrative point of how easy it is to present a different
perspective through different use of language and interpretation of what
people have said. AND I do not recollect offering anyone any advice!   
However, I guess my words are open to interpretation!

From what I have read in these posts and in the articles by jazz police
etc.. the difficulty of much of the current legal battle under disucssion is
that so much of it is based on verbal and oral agreements, words which
are so open to interpretation. Particularly, as they are coloured by the
passage of time.

I believe implicitly in justice and in fighting impunity, so in so many
respects I sympathise with Williams endeavour.   However, I also
recognize that I and probably no other person reading or participating in
this forum other than William and Madeleine herself have sufficient
information to make a balanced or fair judgement. We have one half of
the story. William’s. Perhaps Madeleine and her agent have not been
wise in failing to comment or going more public with their side of the
story. However, we cannot speculate based on partial information. I
therefore refrain from passing judgment either way.

You are quite right that the claim of physical and verbal abuse is a very
serious one. I would agree with you and Suzy on this and I wholly agree
that impact of battery, mental anguish and abuse are profound.
Accusations of such kind must be treated with the most extreme gravity.
I must again however, point out that there are only two people who truly
know what transpired between William and Madeleine and that is they
themselves. We have only William’s representations here. Again I would
not dare to comment on such a serious issue with only partial

I am surprised that you so readily accept everything that William posts
and from this alone draw your conclusions and opine that Madeleine “has
the remnants of a conscience” and on the basis of evidence from one side
alone conclude that the “accusations of abuse are entirely contrived and
malicious”.   How can you possibly conclude this? Who is being simple
minded here? I am glad you are not my legal counsel here or worse yet a
presiding judge. “Let’s not hear the counsel for the prosecution of I have
Back to Top
willgalison View Drop Down
New Member
New Member

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25
  Quote willgalison Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2005 at 12:01pm

Your letter to Judith is so riddled with faulty logic and hyperbole
that I won't waste either of our time to respond to all your
"points'. I will let Judith dispatch with that if she feels like it.

However I would like to post the part of my original posting that
I deleted, because you are claiming that it drew a "parallel"
between the bombings and this situation.

"The recent horrible bombings in London put this row about
GYOMM in perspective. "

That is all I wrote and all I deleted. It may have been insensitive
to mention London, but I stand by the sentiment.

I was fundamentally contrasting the two events, not equating
them. The only "paralell" I drew between these two situations is
that evil intent is evil intent. As Judith properly understood, I
was saying that bad people do bad things and how far they go
usually depends on how much they can get away with. By "bad
people" I mean people who will maliciously harm others to
serve their own ends. I stand by that.

Greenberg falsely acccused me of a crime and claimed to have
evidence. He put me in the position of having to defend my
reputation and livelyhood, at tremendous cost and effort. I
would rather be making music.

Greenberg could as easily accused you of a crime and you
would be forced to do the same.

It is easy for a lawyer to say he has evidence of a crime, even if
does not. That's what Joseph MaCarthy did to great effect in the
50's. He waved pieces of paper in the air and destroyed
thousands of lives.

The ignorant majority went along with this villian, but a few
heroes stood up to him and said "show us the evidence". He
couldn't .

I say to Greenberg "put up or shut up". If you have evidence,
show it. If you don't, admit you don't and take your lumps.

Lack of evidence does not prove that I did not abuse Madi- it is
impossible to prove a negative. But it does prove that
Greenberg is a liar, because he wrote “Over the course of this
year, we have obtained directly and from Ms. Peyroux,
evidence of numerous incidents of physically and verbally
abusive behavior by Mr. Galison against Ms. Peyroux."

Since it was Greenberg who made the accusation, it is
Greenberg's responsibility to show the evidence. Otherwise, we
are back in Salem.

You are welcome to contact me (as Judith did) to ask for any
documentation that would satisfy your concern that I am a
dangerous abuser on the loose.

Meanwhile, I invite anybody who has any evidence of my
abusing Madi in any way, to publish it on this site (or anywhere
else), as long as you furnish your true name and contact info.
That way your story can be checked at a deposition, under

This is not a "he says, she says" It is a "he says, she can't say
because she will get herself into deeper s**t."


Will Galison.

Edited by willgalison
Back to Top
Amelie View Drop Down

Joined: July 06 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15
  Quote Amelie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2005 at 3:01pm
The mens rea and the actus reus are the two essential elements to a criminal action ... (I thought this originally was a civil law suit !!!) The nature of mens rea (what you call evil intent)does differ as does differ as does the impact of the action of those who harbour and act on evil intent. Come on William seeking to screw somebody unfairly out of money or indeed a libelous law suit (as you claim the physical & verbal abuse accusation is) is NOT the same as seeking to murder.

I have re-read my post. Perhaps in your view their is faulty logic - BUT the only hyperbole that I can detect in any of these posts is in the passionate association that both you and Judith make in referencing this suit with events of global terrorism. Yes you may have been defamed / you have been personally injured BY this action. I honestly try and sympathise with your situation and wish you luck in resolving this situation in a way that is fair BUT my bleeding heart has run dry... and I cannot take you seriously if you continue to such comparisons. Tread carefully William and go safely.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.53
Powered by Web Wiz Forums Free Express Edition
Copyright ©2001-2008 Web Wiz