yep, I noted this to one of the people who wanted to excoriate me at
the same time for my posts
how did I know what I know when I knew it?? Obviously I had
information that came from solid sources, much like a reporter does
when he is researching informative articles for his newspaper.. I
guess I should have used the terms "from anonymous sources" or
"members of this administration that cannot be named" or even "I know
and you don't!! nyah"
it surprises me the most that people think Sean or I or anyone else
intelligent would say the things we were both saying if we could be
found liable for saying what we were saying if what we were saying wasn't true.
so in that regard..... a New set of posters for the Crimes of Dr
Haggard will be available later today
Rich
At 09:37 AM 12/5/2009, Sean Linkenback wrote:
MoPo is indeed a strange place.
I remember when I first stated that Jaime Mendez was the guilty
restorer who made the Universal fakes I was basically roasted for
convicting him before the judicial process had a chance to run it's course.
Now that he's offered testimony for the Plaintiff (testimony which I
am willing to wager no one on here heard - except for Jim Gresham),
everyone else is wanting to convict him before the judicial process
has a chance to finish running it's course.
Kind of reminds me of when I outed Debi Jacobson for not refunding
customers when she sold a Universal fake and was roundly blasted by
others for not giving her a chance.
My understanding is that now two months later and having had the
fake in hand for a majority of that time, she is still refusing to refund.
Obviously she doesn't have the same moral compass or sense of
customer responsibility of a Bruce or other sellers who promptly
accepted responsibility when they discovered they had sold a
fake. Makes me glad I don't do business with her.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[email protected]>Franc
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case
I think what you're missing is that this restorer is NOT on trial.
He's filed an affadavit for the plantiff. And yes, the judicial
system would be served well to have me on the jury because I at
least understand that in the USA someone is innocent until proven
guilty and it's the obligation of the juror not to make his mind up
about a case before he's heard the evidence. FRANC
-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hershenson
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 8:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case
The only prayer this restorer has in court is to get TWELVE "Francs"
on his jury!
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Franc
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Luckily in our courts you need evidence and proof. Fantasy and
conjecture doesn't suffice. FRANC
-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
James Richard
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 5:26 AM
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Subject: Re: [MOPO] BIG News in Universal Horror Fraud Case
Bruce,
Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but it seems to me that what
Jaime did was actually "worse" than what Kerry did. Jaime enabled
Kerry. After all, if Jaime had not made the forgeries for him, then
Kerry wouldn't have had any practically perfect fakes to sell to his
victims. To say Jaime didn't do anything "wrong" is like saying the
guy who engraves the plates to make counterfeit $100 bills didn't do
anything wrong because he didn't actually pass out any of the fake
money himself.
But we're just being mean and small-minded, I guess. It's clear now
that Jaime was merely an innocent dupe, just another victim of the
silver-tongued devil. Apparently we need to understand that what
really happened was something like this:
"Kerry: Hi, Jaime. Listen.. I need you to produce another "highly
accurate reproduction" of the Black Cat for me, just like the one
you did 6 months ago. Naturally I'll pay you the same as last time.
Jaime: Gee, Kerry what happened to the first one I made? You told me
to make you a virtually indistinguishable-from-the-original
duplicate so that you could sell your authentic Black Cat and keep
my expert copy to hang on your wall.
Kerry: Yeah... and that's what I did. But then, see, we had this
earthquake and the poster fell off my wall and my dog ate it. So now
I need you to make me another one.
Jaime: Oh...well, OK then.... since it is only for your own personal use."
-- JR
Bruce Hershenson wrote:
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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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: <mailto:[email protected]>James Richard
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[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]>mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Bruce Hershenson
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:27 AM
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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>http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/newsite/INDEX/ARTICLES/Frauds-Update.htm
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com/>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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.
