No kidding.  We know that.  The law IS different in both cases and that's
how crooks(not talking about anyone specific) take advantage.  Don't you see
there is something wrong here?

 

I don't have the answers, I'm just asking questions.

 

Zeev

 

 

 

 

 

From: Franc [mailto:fdav...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:03 AM
To: 'Zeev Drach'; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: RE: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED!

 

Forging American currency is illegal, in and of itself. Making copies of
original posters is not illegal in and of itself. That's the difference.
Trying to pass off copies of original posters as original is what's illegal.


 

FRANC

-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] On Behalf Of Zeev
Drach
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:08 AM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED!

It seems some of us are not listening.

 

Jim Gresham said the case WAS NOT dismissed, just taken out. For now. Why
are all the "legal experts" already trying to rationalize his legal
innocence.

 

Adrian, Is the forger of fake dollar bills innocent because he just created
them? He may claim he thought they were props for a movie?  And what about
the crook who used the fake money? How's he to know they were fakes? Or so
he claims.

 

Zeev

 

 

 

From: MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] On Behalf Of
jboh...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:18 AM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED!

 

I think the point is if the fakes were produced that is one thing, it is
when they are sold for a profit without description as fake that is another.
If Jaimie sold them without describing them as reproductions then he is in
breech of the law, if he was contracted to produce them for a third party
then he is not in breech of the law. If he takes a wage or service cost for
materials and labour etc. then he is in the clear. It is the person that
sold them for a profit and described them as original without restoration
then that person surely is to blame.

If I had a copy of Turners the Haywain or Da Vinci's Mona Lisa and sold it
as original the talented artist that created the item did it on commission
and took his fee, when the item is in my hand then what I do with it is not
his concern. Under the eyes of the law he is not in breech of his contract
to fulfill a clients needs. 

However, morally I think we all know that to produce such items and not mark
them as reproductions is perhaps the question here and that such a motive is
with doubt. I am sure that the fake Lobby Cards that were "restored" must
have een in such a quantity as to raise suspicion. Any person with an ounce
of morals and scruples would certainly made the community aware that there
are items out there now hat are good reproductions on the right material. If
that had been the case then this whole case would never have occured. 

In the end, like most of you I have followed this closely, and I feel that
those who are dishonest enough to cheat a man out of an astronomical sum in
such a fashion deserves the full might of what the majesty of the law can
serve sentence to.

Adrian

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Franc <fdav...@verizon.net>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:03
Subject: Re: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED!

Gee, why did I predict this one? The fact that he produced the fakes is













 
not enough under the law to convict him. FRANC













 














 
-----Original Message-----













 
From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
<mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu?> ] On Behalf Of Andy













 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:13 AM













 
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU













 
Subject: Re: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED!













 














 














 
Was Michael Jackson ever guilty? Most said yes even after his court













 
shananagans were dismissed. Doesn't change the fact he is the king of













 
pop.













 














 
The law is an ass, always has been, always will be. My sister is now a













 
lawyer and she even thinks it's crazy. 













 














 
I have always had alot of time for Jamie, it's been dismissed so I guess













 
we should leave it at that and move on. I don't know every detail of













 
this case so am not going to label or comment.













 














 
Do you know now that in the UK, you can't carry a carving knife around













 
your own home as it's seen as a dangerous weapon? You can't even shovel













 
snow from the walkway incase someone slips. Slips on less snow than was













 
there before??? Crazy!!!













 














 
Anyway, I'll get back in my cage, could go on all day.













 














 
Andy  













 














 
________________________













 














 
On 2010-01-12 11:49:48 +0000 James Richard <jrl...@mediabearonline.com>













 
wrote:













 














 
> 













 
> The thing is, Jamie publicly *confessed* to making the fakes and













 
> provided the prosecution with a list of the items he created. Whether 













 
> his cooperation with the prosecution now gets him removed from the 













 
> lawsuit or some other considerations doesn't change the fact that --













 
by 













 
> his own admission -- he did the deed.













 
> 













 
> 













 














 
         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.

Reply via email to