There lies the dichotomy...did the forger know what was going on with those fakes?
In the eyes of the law he has to be proven guilty. We all have an inkling of why he was doing those fakes, they were for his client...what his client does with them is up to the client. Morally would you as a restorer actually go out there on MOPO and say "Hey guys! I just reproduced a Frankenstien Lobby Card on an original 1930's stock linen lobby card and it looks great, my client paid me a bnch of money but I don't know what he intends to do with that lobby card"...then we all say "Well Hell me old mucker you did a beuatiful job and that looks almost as good as thereal thing..." I think we can all fill in the blanks. In the end it is the majesty of the law that is in question here and lets face it the defendant is innocent until proven guilty...if the law system in the US is anything like Boston Legal then it will take a good lawyer five minutes to make the "forger" in this case out to be an innocent artist doing the bidding of his client. And like Zeev has pointed out he has been taken out. We are still awaiting more news and updates, until the case gets to court we are not going to be able to speculate. I like the rest of you want these dishonest so and so's to recieve the might of the law...but look what happend to OJ Simpson. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:18 Subject: Re: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED! Amen, brothers. You think maybe when someone makes two or three fake Black Cat one-sheets and then sees that one or more supposedly real ones sold for hundreds of thousands, they might put two and two together? Or when zillions of "originals" that are identical to the zillions of fakes you just created turn up in auction after auction, you might put THAT together? I love the Sgt. Schultz defense, and it may keep him out of jail, but does anyone really believe he was clueless as to what was happening? If so, state it here. Bruce On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Zeev Drach <[email protected]> wrote: 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:18 AM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:13 AM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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: [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.
