MessageWhile I am doing nothing less than adding more conjecture, here goes:
At the end of all this, parties will either "plead out" in advance of trail; go
to trial and/or appeal decisions. There will be some kind of finality for each
and every party. It will involve an application of the law to a particular case
or cases. We will then have people going free.. or doing jail time... or paying
damages or court costs... or successful litigants then trying to collect
damages and a host of other things. The result for every charged party will
probably be different. There will be as many different results as there are
parties to these lawsuits.
We will then have "LAW."
We can then talk about whether we have justice.
We can speculate about the damage that is done to our hobby in the meanwhile.
Whether we have an ultimately better hobby, better authentication, better
restoration and seller practices, etc. etc., just won't be known for a long
time.
I would like to think that I am a little smarter than the average bear and that
I know a little something about posters. I couldn't imagine being a judge
trying to decide this with spin coming from counsel on both sides.
Phil Ayling
----- Original Message -----
From: Franc
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case
I was NOT speaking to Jaime's claim of innocence. I was responding to the
illogic of Bruce's post. FRANC
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Halegua Comic Art [mailto:sa...@comic-art.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:35 PM
To: Franc; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case
Franc
while I applaud Jaime for coming forward with a mea culpa, I would also say
that due to the number of copies of certain pieces he produced, that it's hard
to accept your points as truly valid as concerns Jaime.
Keep in mind that some lobby cards are known to have been produced 10+
times (I think one of them being the Son of Frankenstein scene card that Bruce
accidentally auctioned, but discovered before billing). That simple fact makes
it hard to believe that Jaime did not - even in the back of his mind - know
that there was something nefarious going on.
Also, as we know, the items were indeed "made to deceive", otherwise - why
did Jaime not put an identifier on the back of each item to prevent such frauds
as have been perpetrated on the Universal poster hobby??
THERE WAS NO VALID PURPOSE ANYONE COULD TELL A RESTORER WHY HE SHOULD NEED
3 COPIES OF A BLACK CAT ONE SHEET MADE TO LOOK LIKE IT WAS AN ORIGINAL POSTER
and that's why they are called "forgeries"
Don't forget that Jaime can be liable financially for his part and that it
is in his interest to deflect his liability as well as reduce an criminal
liability he has as well. Therefore it is in his own interest to "sugar coat"
his participation.
Now however, do you have any doubt that in his response to Jaime's sworn
affidavit that Kerry Haggard will file one saying that Jaime was a knowing
participant??
Did you ever hear the term "they're thick as thieves"??
After an arrest, thieves usually sell each other out to save their own
skins.
Rich
At 08:24 AM 12/3/2009, Franc wrote:
Bruce --- I'm not taking sides in this one but your logic is flawed. A
forgery is defined as "the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects
with the intent to deceive." If Jaime Mendez's claim is actually true in that
he didn't know that is was the intent of Kerry Haggard to sell these works as
originals, then Jaime had no intent to deceive. Hence Jaime is not guilty of
forging movie posters irrespective of the fact that it is his work that was
ultimately used in Haggard's forgery.
Franc
-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [ mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hershenson
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:27 AM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case
I guess those who said that we have to give this restorer the "benefit
of the doubt" will now accept that he is GUILTY of forging movie posters
(whether or not he was "aware" of what purpose they would be used for), since
he admits to it himself.
Given this news, are there still people here who think they should send
their posters to this person for restoration? How can you know that YOU won't
receive a reproduction in return? And what of the many, many posters he
restored for many dealers and auction houses over the past three years? Don't
they all need to be checked over closely.
I applaud this person for "doing the right thing", but I certainly
would advise him to find a new line of work.
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Sean Linkenback
<slinkenb...@comcast.net > wrote:
Sue is probably waiting until their regular newsletter to make an
announcement, but there is BIG, HUGE, GIGANTIC news in the ongoing civil
lawsuits (which will definitely affect the upcoming criminal suit) in the
Haggard fake case.
Jaime Mendez has entered a sworn affidavit in the Gresham v. Haggard
case for the plaintiff and is testifying that he DID indeed make the fake
posters on behalf of Kerry Haggard, but did not realize the true motives behind
Haggard's request.
There is also a partial list provided by Mendez of the posters he
worked on.
You can read more about it at the LAMP website:
http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/newsite/INDEX/ARTICLES/Frauds-Update.htm
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
