I responded to you because you asked a question and didn't seem to understand the difference. Don't ask if you already know the answers. FRANC
-----Original Message----- From: Zeev Drach [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:17 AM To: 'Franc'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [MOPO] James Gresham VS. Jaime Mendez Lawsuit DISMISSED! 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:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:03 AM To: 'Zeev Drach'; [email protected] 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zeev Drach Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:08 AM To: [email protected] 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:[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] <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.
