While I don't presume to know anyone's personal finances (and I would never recommend anyone go into business being under-capitalized, but understand it is a fact of life in many small businesses) , this is a point that I mentioned to Jim when I first heard of the dispute with Debi and suggested that he offer her the option of paying back over time and even with partial credit. My understanding is that both of these scenarios were rejected.
Also a few other points: 1. The amount in question here is $11,000 as noted in the complaint, not $40,000, 50,000 or some other number (and certainly not $80,000). 2. Your math is faulty in thinking she would have an $80,000 loss (using your hypothetical scenario). If you pay $40,000 for something, sell it, and refund the money your loss is still only your purchase price. If you were selling an item on consignment, sold it, paid the consignor, and now can't find him/her, that would be a better argument for greater loss. Alas, that is not the case here. 3. Debi is the dealer in this situation and while I agree she is also a victim, yes I believe that she is responsible for both refunding a customer who purchased a fake from her and she is responsible for pursuing the person who sold it to her. That is one of the main reasons why people chose to buy from a supposedly reputable dealer to start with: reliability, honesty, and integrity. It appears some of these qualities are lacking both from this dealer and this transaction. ----- Original Message ----- From: James Richard To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Universal Horror Fraud Update I don't know the situation with Debi -- and it's obvious she can't comment on it publicly with a lawsuit in the offing -- but why doesn't anyone (Sean in particular) consider the fact that she might have wanted to refund the money but simply did not have it to refund? I mean -- to pose a hypothetical -- say she paid Kerry or whomever $40,000 for the item and then resold it to Jim for, say $50,000. She only made $10,000 on the deal, but Jim wants his $50,000 back. She doesn't have it unless she can get her original $40,000 back from Kerry or whomever she bought it from -- she's short $40,000 of what she "owes" to Jim. Are people saying she should be out both the $40,000 she paid for the item PLUS the $50,000 Jim wants back? Obviously she should return whatever profit she made on the deal to Jim... but if neither one of them knew they were dealing with a forgery, why Jim should take zero loss and Debi take the hit for both of them to the tune of an $80,000 loss? How is that fair and equitable if Debi didn't know she was being sold a fake in the first place? She's just as much of a victim as Jim is, isn't she? Nope, sorry, but if she were an innocent dupe and had no idea she was passing on a forgery, then she has a perfect right to tell Jim, "I'm sorry this happened, but I simply don't have $40,000 of your money to return to you right now and I won't have it until I get the money back that I paid for the item in the first place, so you'll have to get in line for that just like me and everyone else." It's all well and good if you are Heritage and have a ton of money sloshing around in your bank account -- plus an hefty insurance policy to cover you against contingencies likes this -- but if you're just a regular person/seller like Debi, how are you supposed to come up with the money for a refund unless you can get your own money back from the con men first? Maybe some on this list have an extra $40,000 (or whatever the actual amount is) laying around that they can just hand out "on principle", but I'm afraid 99% of the people don't have that option. I doubt many movie posters sellers are in any financial position to take a $40,000 loss and then come up with the ready cash to take an additional $40,000 loss on top of that to make a refund. However, Debi should have at least offered to immediately refund to Jim any profit she made on the transaction. Perhaps she did that, but Jim refused to accept a partial refund. His lawyer would probably advise him not to. But we don't know the details and won't know until and if the case goes to public trial. I'll agree that in a perfect world where we all have tons of free cash lying around that Debi should have refunded all of Jim's money immediately and then worried about getting her own back from Kerry & Co., but most of us just don't live in that world and wouldn't have that option if it were us standing in Debi's shoes. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: Jim, you do realize that this is a civil suit and not a criminal one, yes? Innocent until proven guilty isn't really a term used in this case, that's for criminal trials (such as Haggard's upcoming trial when the FBI arrest him). But I wasn't attacking Debi, just expressing my disbelief that her dealings with Jim have had to come to a lawsuit. In this particular case the facts are quite clear: 1. Jim paid Debi for a lobby card (that she apparently received in a trade from Haggard) 2. This lobby card was later determined to be fake 3. Jim returned the lobby card to Debi and is awaiting a refund There can only be a few reasons that Debi is refusing to refund in this situation. 1. Jim DIDN'T pay Debi for this item, or Debi did not accept payment for it (Jim's proof of payment says this is not true). 2. The lobby card ISN'T fake (report from Carol Tincup says this is not the situation) 3. Jim DIDN'T return the card to Debi (proof of receipt says this isn't true). 4. Jim switched out a real card for a fake one? (a ridiculous idea that anyone who knows Jim would attest to) 5. Jim somehow profited from the deal and Debi is refusing to refund (not sure how you profit when you spend money buying a fake, but I'm listing it anyways) For months Bruce has been warning of the dangers of dealing with people who have sold fakes and would not accept responsibility for doing so, here we have clear evidence of a supposedly reputable dealer selling a fake and not refunding the customer who has purchased it. Debi needs to do the right thing and refund Jim Gresham and pursue the forger who sold/traded her the fake just as many others are doing. And Jim, to answer your question - NO. Like Bruce, in my years of dealing I have never had a lawsuit or a court case, either against me or initiated by me. I guess having some sort of a moral compass and actually attempting to do the right thing instead of just pay lip service to the concept has served me well so far. Sean ----- Original Message ----- From: jim episale To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Universal Horror Fraud Update Sean It is really beyond belief that you continue until attack Debi. Have you NEVER been involved in a lawsuit? The First thing that your attorney tells you is not to discuss the case. It will be interesting to see what finally comes out. And I hope that you will be as quick to apologize as you have been to criticize As for me I still believe in the adage of our American Justice system " Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty". jim Check out our shop video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-n2AznLA8o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCP7PaO-2tk&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fojAZcbvL7E&feature=related jim episale Unshredded Nostalgia 323 South main St. Route 9 Barnegat, N.J. 08005 800-872-9990 609-660-2626 "Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional." From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean Linkenback Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 5:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [MOPO] Universal Horror Fraud Update There have been two new cases filed against sellers of fake Universal Horror posters: GC 091284 James Gresham v. Debi Jacobson CV 06529 Movietime, Inc. et al v. Haggard It is no surprise to see another case against Haggard (this time by the owners of the eBay ID JerseryProductions), and anyone else who has been defrauded by Haggard needs to act soon to preserve their rights against his pending bankruptcy filing. But it is sad to see Debi Jacobson still refusing to take responsibility for selling a Universal horror fake. For someone who wanted to "do the right thing", I guess the right thing means defending against a lawsuit instead of refunding a customer who returned a fake item to her several months ago. Makes me quite glad that I deal with people like Bruce, Heritage, Todd F., and others who stand 100% behind their material and offer unconditional money-back guarantees (as I also do), and not dealers who offer questionable tactics and hide behind attorneys. 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.
