What are you doing in LV? I'm not going to ask. Oh, butI already did. I don't understand you last e-mail. I totally agreed with Sean on his summation of the Debi lawsuit and totally disagreed with JR on both his take on Debi and Jaime. FRANC
-----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] Guilty is as guilty does 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] <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. 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.
