How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation
David??
do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the
charity of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all
these circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to
repeatedly and purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without
repercussions?
Rich -
* I don't
need to "guess" how a third party might "adjudicate" this. To do so in
Grey's direction would be prejudicial because he is a friend, therefore,
my views cannot be realistically nor legally be accepted as "objective"
nor "impartial." My opinion does not matter. But since you asked, I think
Geraldine's chances would improve if she can prove
class-action negligence on behalf of more consignors like herself. This
is the method, coincidentally, that a person is also more likely to
have success garnering media coverage - which I maintain is way more damaging
to a company's long-term reputation and ability to retain market share - than a
lawsuit involving monetary damages. If she took this to the media with others
in tow, she could have fun with it even if she loses.
* Do
I think Heritage's offer is fair? It depends if it were you, not
Geraldine, faced with this offer - and if you yourself thought it was
fair. It's not for anyone to judge what's fair to you. Your
next-door-neighbor who's not in the hobby might ask, however, why would an
offer be extended in the absence of an infraction? We know the tactical
reasons why legal settlements are reached - but such reasons remain fuzzy to
the outside world.
* Do
I think it is right for Geraldine to "repeatedly and purposely libel"
Heritage without repercussions? These are YOUR words and YOUR opinion that she
has committed libel - without you yourself physically being in Dallas nor at
the location of Geraldine's home where the aforementioned dispute began. Your
litmus test for libel is different from mine. Grey is arguably a "public
figure" who is
published routinely in articles circulated in the hobby. Therefore, a
libel judgement (written) vs. a slander judgment (spoken) against a
"public figure" - requires, 1) truth as determined by a third party, and
2) malicious execution with intent to harm from a person who DOES
NOT view himself/herself, a) as being aggrieved in some way, nor, b) as
suffering a material loss. To prove malice in a libel case involving a public
figure requires doing harm just for the sake of doing harm - with NO other
reason such as seeking a material remedy. Internet "extortion" is just as hard
to prove as libel involving a public figure. This "opinion" comes from a
person (me) - who has been
threatened with libel and slander lawsuits more than 30 times during my
news career - and who has never been successfully taken to court nor bled to
death in legal fees. You've seen the stuff I write. I sometimes take things
pretty far before I stop short to prevent getting hung by my own leash.
* As
to repercussions - the repercussions will be evident if Heritage
chooses to file a counter-claim against Geraldine for libel on a
published public forum. Everyone is responsible for his or her own words, as
is stated on the disclaimer at the bottom of every PUBLIC MoPo post. If her
attorneys believe she is writing libelous material, she might stop. Because
she hasn't, I gather she's been told "it's OK."
* As
to how this has unfolded at MoPo - it is my personal view that
Geraldine should just post and people who are truly Heritage's friends
should shut up. If you're not Heritage's friend - or if you don't know its
people in person - post away. There are tactical reasons why Heritage hasn't
posted much about this at MoPo. I've personally talked to Heritage about this.
Quite candidly, public
rebuttals from third parties to Geraldine's posts aren't doing the people in
Dallas any favors. Most posts are just character testimonials and/or
third-party opinions about
Geraldine's actions vs. Heritage's. Note that I have NOT publicly commented
on Heritage's behalf - point-by-point to Geraldine's charges as a few people,
in my view, so ridiculously have. You may talk about this publicly all you
want, but you should carefully weigh its impact on your own reputation as
dealers (as it appears it is mostly dealers rushing to Heritage's defense) - as
well as its impact on the squabbling parties involved.
* In David vs. Goliath battles, I never dismiss the possibility that the little
guy, despite everything - may still win. In the "disproportional" court of
opinion at MoPo - it appears Geraldine is wrong and Heritage is right. But in
the court of "public" opinion OUTSIDE of MoPo, I wouldn't be surprised if
consumers would FEEL THE OPPOSITE, regardless of the facts. At the end of the
day, favorable testimonials from dealers about other dealers - DON'T MATTER TO
CONSUMERS - as much as favorable testimonials from RETAIL CUSTOMERS about those
same dealers. Whether we're talking about posters, refrigerators or used cars,
this principle rarely changes and is practically etched in stone. - d.
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:50:41 -0700
From: sa...@comic-art.com
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
David
I think you have mis-characterized what is going on this thread
somewhat
No one has accused Geraldine of anything, or at least I certainly
haven't. Why has anyone other than Grey commented? well that's simple..
Geraldine has posted to a public forum with many members. I have seen
both collectors and dealers comment and Grey himself commented to one of
her earlier posts. Most posts have been pretty fair to both sides. I.E.
none of us can know if Geraldine did or did not send the posters she
declares are missing, or if she mistakenly stating that she has, not
knowing these posters will be found at a later date in their home.
In any case, her claim has a hard way to go. She stated pretty simply she
got $11,000 for some poster that she did not know that Charlie sent or
she sent or who knows who sent (as some much of her posts are somewhat
confusing), so that says to me that she really isn't sure on any level
what was sent as she thinks she sent some valuable poster, but had no
idea she had actually sent a different and more valuable poster.
She is also here, on MoPo, specifically for the purpose it seems of
disparaging Rudy & Heritage. Her posts are not benign by any stretch
of the imagination and and it has been getting repeated continually for
several weeks. I think it's only natural that quite a few people will
chime in on such posts as they are designed to elicit a response from
people.
My suggestion to Geraldine would be that if she feels she has enough
proof to show she did indeed send these posters, that she go to the forum
that would produce a judgement in her favor: the courts system, or via
direct negotiation with Heritage and that posting her problem here to
MoPo would therefore not be the correct forum for her dispute. However I
do not agree with some other people that she should not post on MoPo her
dispute. She certainly can, but she will get a response from someone of
course.
Of course, we actually already know that she has negotiated with Heritage
on the issue, Heritage disputes her claim, but offered to give to the
charity of her choice the proposed value of these posters. We know all
this not because Grey posted it, but because Geraldine posted it. None
the less, it is apparent that Geraldine feels that she and not some
charity should get the money for these posters that she says she sent,
are not present on any inventory, and that Heritage says they did not
receive them and it feels unseemly to them to pay her thousands of
dollars for posters they don't believe she sent them.
How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation
David??
do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the
charity of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all
these circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to
repeatedly and purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without
repercussions?
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:42:52 -0700
From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad
this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take
her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".My goodness,
no kidding. I wish people would stop "extrapolating the motives of" and/or
"speaking on behalf of" Heritage. If it wants, it can chime in. All of these
"testimonials" are sickening. I think Grey is a fine guy, but it's wild to
read the genuflecting posts which give Heritage all the benefit of the doubt
while casting Geraldine as a senile loon. On one hand people stop short of
calling her a liar, but regardless of any errors she may have made (and it
appears she has made a few) - it's also clear that a WAY-too-disproportionate
number of "rebuking' responses have come dealers - with only a few posts from
collectors like Carlos, who has no dog in this race, yet who applauds the
discussion of things that sometimes go awry in the hobby. If you are tired of
this thread and/or want it to die on its own, stop responding. But some of you
guys are unreal. (And geez, it's always the alpha-males who feel compelled to
defend, rationalize or process the thoughts and actions of a guy most of us
like - while simultaneously doing the same in an almost entirely adverse way
against an "outsider." The ratio of dealers posting their thoughts about
consumer-related problems - feels like a rigged card deck that's stacked
10-to-1 against collectors. Lurkers can't feel good about the way this has
played out on MoPo. And I'd bet more than a few who've quietly read some of
the posts thus far - are taking mental notes of who they will buy, sell or
consign their very valuable collections in the future. -d.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:10:29 -0500
From: brucehershen...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I guess I just come at this from a different perspective, having never
been in court or been sued or been arrested. I would not pay someone
for something I did not do, but I guess that is just me.
On the other hand, if Geraldine is simply lying, WHY is she doing so?
What is she gaining by this? This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washigton", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad
this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take
her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".
Bruce
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.
