Carr, Entercom make their cases

[Dan.Strassberg]

As I understand it, had he not signed the contract with Greater Media
until his contract with Entercom had expired (last month), he would be
off the hook, and Entercom, having failed to get him to re-sign with
them (they allegedly made no more to do so), would have been
completely out of luck. Not waiting a few weeks to sign the contract
with GM sure sounds like gross stupidity to me. If the story as I
heard it is correct and Mintz Levin nevertheless really OKed his
signing the Greater Media contract when he signed it, I would say that
Howie has a great case against his own attorneys--assuming that he can
find a lawyer who will take such a case.

One thing you can count on, though, is that Carr, being a radio
personality, has the overwhelming weight of public opinion on his
side, not that that necessarily gets him anything in court. Then there
are those of us who regard him as the lowest of the low and a general
scourge upon society--but we are in a small minority, I'm sure.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don A" <donald_astelle@yahoo.com>
To: "Dan.Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>; "Bob Nelson"
<raccoonradio@mail.com>; "BRI"
<boston-radio-interest@rolinin.bostonradio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Carr, Entercom make their cases


>
>> It would be absolutely wonderful to find out that Carr could not
>> legally work in Boston radio until 2012--and all because of his own
>> avarice (and stupidity).
>
> Stupidity?  Like any wise person, he sought out some very good legal
> advice from the gang at Mintz Levin (Not too shabby...).
>
> And for most of us laymen...we do what the lawyers tell us.
>
> However, in the end, we are reminded that all lawyers give us is
> their "read" or "opinion".
>
> No one really knows the answer until it gets before a judge.
>
> I, too, am surprised that the judges don't find the "right of first
> refusal" to be just another instrument to effect a
> "non-compete"...which we now know is illegal.
>
>