JR Obviously we are very wrong here. The restorer in question is not a perpetrator of any crime, he is actually a *VICTIM*. After all, he was just "following orders". How sad that people are now persecuting him. They should be showering him with sympathy (and apparently, restoration consignments) instead.
Bruce On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:41 AM, James Richard <[email protected]>wrote: > Steve, > > I'm simply echoing "Bruce's logic" as Franc called it: Given what Jamie now > admits he did, if you send him a poster to work on how can you trust him not > to do something he shouldn't with it? Like use it to make a near-perfect > forgery that would go to someone else... or maybe send you back the forgery > while your original stays with him or goes who knows where? > > His total disregard and disrespect for the community of movie poster > collectors -- demonstrated his admitted part in this massive 2-year forgery > scam -- clearly disqualifies him from any future position of trust in that > community as far as I'm concerned. > > What, we should say, "Well, he's been caught and will pay (whatever) price > the law lays on him for his part (not much, likely, since he is now a > cooperating witness in the case against Haggard) -- so now he's learned his > lesson, he's sorry (that he got caught), and will promise never ever to do > something like that again... so everything's cool."? > > No, I might go for something like that if Jamie had been the one to first > come forward and break the scandal instead of Grey Smith. Or if Jamie had > gone to some of the people who were sold his forgeries and said "Hey, guys, > I think I may have unknowingly been involved in something that was done to > you." Or gone to Heritage, his biggest customer, and said "Um, Grey, I think > I screwed up... here's what I did, but now I realize I was duped and > shouldn't have done it and here's a list of the posters I forged." > > Or he could have simply stepped up to the plate like Diane Jefferies did in > regards to the fake DRACULA poster when she publicly told her story on this > list about how a client pressed her to do things to that poster which she > had serious doubts about. Although she did it -- because that's what the > paying client insisted on -- when she saw her work put up for auction under > false pretenses, she quickly decided she needed to publicly tell this list > what she knew about the situation and so was instrumental in bringing to > light the true nature of that poster. > > But no. Jamie did none of those things. He just kept on cranking out the > forgeries until the shit was about to hit the fan (or maybe until Kerry > stopped paying him?). And when the scam was made public even then he lied, > denying for months that he had anything to do with it. He's only admitting > it now in order to cut himself a deal with the prosecutors. > > Sorry. Not someone I will ever send my posters to. Other individuals may be > feel differently and can do what they wish of course, but I don't see how an > operation like Heritage -- which takes extremely valuable posters from > people on consignment (in trust) can run the risk of continuing to do > business with him. > > As ever, just my humble opinion. > > -- JR > > Steven F. Poole wrote: > > Gosh.....That's a pretty strong statement, JR. To say that Jaime should > never be trusted with posters again. > Help me to understand your point here. Because of being a possibly > unknowing accessory to this crime? Because he may send a dupe your way on > returning work? Because he will always be suspect of making forgeries of > any real posters one sends his way? Or just on general principle of being > an admitted expert at reproducing the real deal by way of vintage posters? > I'm not trying to be dense here. I just would like yourself or Bruce to > go into more detailed reasons why you guys are holding these tough (but > maybe valid) reasons. I have been a client of Jaime's in the past and I > would appreciate any discussions on the topic. > ~Steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* James Richard <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:41 PM > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case > > No one is that naive. When Jamie was asked to create a duplicate of the > same poster more than once -- a duplicate which would be virtually > indistinguishable from the real poster -- there was no possibility he did > not understand what he was being asked to do or fail to realize what Haggard > would do with them. No doubt Jamie had what he considered good reasons for > going along with scam. I'm sure Kerry has his own reasons, as well. Doesn't > change the fact that Bruce is right: No one should ever send Jamie Mendez > another poster now that there is no longer any doubt about what he did. > > There is no excuse for what he did and he can never be trusted with posters > again. > > -- JR > > 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:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Bruce Hershenson > *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:27 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 > <[email protected]>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: >> [email protected] 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: > [email protected] 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: > [email protected] 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: > [email protected] 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: > [email protected] 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: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
