Franc
Sean's response to this is correct..
now Debi, I know you have to see this at some point.. I'm not getting
on you, just stating the facts of life
Debi sold Jim this item
now I can't recall all the specifics, but that is the over-riding
fact. When dealing with someone in a legal manner - and I do not
believe Debi acted fraudulently - your recourse is with the person
you dealt with and that person only, unless as was believed in the
Mendez/Haggard situation (at least until Jaime testified) there is a
conspiracy to defraud which opens up anyone involved in the fraud to
action by that entity who has been cheated. Such a suspicion is the
reason Jaime was merged into the complaint against Haggard at first.
Though Debi has also been screwed, she has recourse against he who
cheated her. The fact that she was cheated also has no bearing at all
on Jim's position. Jim recourse is against Debi and not against the
other people involved as he had no contact with them concerning this
particular deal
Debi refunds Jim, Haggard refunds Debi and anyone in between Haggard
and Debi also refunds to Debi.
Whether Debi has a difficulty getting her money back from Haggard or
agents has no bearing on and does not ameliorate her responsibility to Jim
Again, I'll mention that 20+ years ago, I was also cheated by a thief
to the tune of $37,000
he was an agent of a crook who stole art from a museum and then sold
it into the hobby, and seeing as I was at that time the highest in
the food chain in comic art, I was one of the people who was sold
this merchandise.
After the merchandise was found to be stolen, I began to refund to my
customers the money that they paid to me.
My refunds to them were not predicated on any action of the thief who
sold me the artwork and I have never gotten back one cent of that $37,000
My loss was only $37,000. It was not doubled by the amount I had to
refund as that is like double-dipping. I only lose once, not twice.
Furthermore, I did not say to any of my customers "well I made $200
on each of those, so I'm going to refund you $200 on each one".
Sorry JR, that concept is ridiculous on it's face. I did not get $200
from each customer.. I got the full purchase price.
My buyers had no recourse against the thieves. Their recourse was against me
This is the situation that Debi is now in. Everyone in the chain is
responsible to the person with whom they dealt - as long as each
person was not part of a conspiracy to defraud, and we have no reason
to believe that anyone in the chain except Haggard was defrauding anyone.
Furthermore... this is what insurance is for folks.. Liability
Rich
At 12:35 PM 1/13/2010, Franc wrote:
Luckily, the justice system in this country requires more than
conjecture. There's a standard of proof that must be meant and just
reading about this case with no knowledge whatsoever about what went
on, I determined ( at least in my mind) that there was not enough
proof to convict Jamie of any crime. If you want to convict him in
your court of public opinion, so be it. "Violating trust and
stewardship" may be a horrible thing but it's still not something
you can get a conviction on. You on the other hand are guilty of
using bad grammar. " He done wrong" is not English. In my book
that's an inexcusable offensive but I won't be able to get a
conviction on that one either. FRANC
-----Original Message-----
From: James Richard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:04 PM
To: Franc
Subject: Guilty is as guilty does
A few people on this list are arguing technicalities just for the
sake of arguing. Defense attorneys have to do this for their clients
even if they are guilty, but you people are not Jamie's defense
attorneys, so please quit playing us for fools. What Jamie did was
deliberately and under specific instruction from his "boss(client)"
was to make forgeries of well-known very expensive posters that were
very carefully and intentionally created to be able to be passed off
as originals even when scrutinized by experts. Whether that was
technically "illegal" is immaterial to the fact that Jamie, *by his
own admission*, is in fact actually guilty of doing this in the Real
World, not the world of legal technicalities. I can't imagine anyone
wanting to every deal with him again, talented or not. He done
wrong, Franc, not only by the people who were conned out of their
money by his deliberate forgeries, but he also wronged every one of
his colleagues in the poster restoration/backing business and all of
us who collect movie posters as well. He violated trust and
stewardship in a major way.
-- JR
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.
