David
I was after all responding to your email specifically. whose name did
you think I would use?? (said with a humorous twist as you know you are my pal)
I only have a minute as I have auctions still listing.. but
concerning this particular quote:
I think Geraldine's chances would improve if she can prove
class-action negligence on behalf of more consignors like herself
I agree with you.. but that's because based on everything she's said
about this issue to date convinces me that she has absolutely no
chance of getting a beneficial adjudication otherwise, be it in front
of a judge or an arbitrator. so even a 1% chance of winning in a
class is better than no chance of winning otherwise.
she may also have damaged her case due to the way she posted here
about this issue.. Not about posting itself, but the manner in which
she has posted
for instanc e, I believe she has only posted this issue each time
Rudy has posted about something else. as if she was stalking Rudy so
she could post.
then it is pretty obvious that her intent is to disparage, which any
court or arbitrator frowns upon
It's easy to understand she feels she has been screwed, however there
is no proof put forth, and that makes it awful hard to find for her.
you can't always win David and sometimes you do have to settle "for
what you can get"
and Bruce.. why should you be surprised Brek chimed in? he had
something pertinent to say.. But everyone needs to remember
something.. this is a PUBLIC FORUM.. it invites comment. I wish more
people would comment
At 07:35 PM 6/5/2012, David Kusumoto wrote:
That's a pretty funny video, Bruce. Nelson Eddy as an historical
Andy Hardy rallying people to a cause that at first, no one wants to
join. Almost like "High Noon" but without the same results. (Too
bad Gary Cooper couldn't sing.) Thanks for posting! I try to be
fair but Rich publicly called me out by name on MoPo (which is
pretty rare) - so I decided for a moment whether to let my older
post stand - or to respond directly to his challenge about
"fairness" and issues relating to "libel," the latter I know a whole
lot about from personal experience. As someone else pointed out to
me privately, "...you're right, people just pile on without knowing
particularly what they are really talking about. Because these same
people can only get their 'facts' from what is posted here." That's
a perfect reflection of how I feel about this whole squabble. -d.
----------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:12:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
I was very impressed that Brek joined this fray, with nothing to
gain whatsoever, Obviously he was motivated to post because he saw a
person who has been repeated dumped on, solely for having alleged
that they were treated in a certain way, and since he believes he
had the same experience with the very same party, he felt compelled
to write himself (and oddly, no one has challenged HIS version of
the facts or HIS competence).
Now, when this person is scorned yet again, David feels compelled to
make a stand as well!
I no longer think this resembles Mr, Smith Goes to Washington. It is
far more similar to a classic scene from another movie, seen here:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vjqfvZVReM>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vjqfvZVReM
(please watch it through!)
Bruce
----------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:46:37 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: [email protected]
How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation David??
do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the
charity of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all
these circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to
repeatedly and purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without repercussions?
Rich -
* I don't need to "guess" how a third party might "adjudicate"
this. To do so in Grey's direction would be prejudicial because he
is a friend, therefore, my views cannot be realistically nor legally
be accepted as "objective" nor "impartial." My opinion does not
matter. But since you asked, I think Geraldine's chances would
improve if she can prove class-action negligence on behalf of more
consignors like herself. This is the method, coincidentally, that a
person is also more likely to have success garnering media coverage
- which I maintain is way more damaging to a company's long-term
reputation and ability to retain market share - than a lawsuit
involving monetary damages. If she took this to the media with
others in tow, she could have fun with it even if she loses.
* Do I think Heritage's offer is fair? It depends if it were you,
not Geraldine, faced with this offer - and if you yourself thought
it was fair. It's not for anyone to judge what's fair to you. Your
next-door-neighbor who's not in the hobby might ask, however, why
would an offer be extended in the absence of an infraction? We know
the tactical reasons why legal settlements are reached - but such
reasons remain fuzzy to the outside world.
* Do I think it is right for Geraldine to "repeatedly and purposely
libel" Heritage without repercussions? These are YOUR words and
YOUR opinion that she has committed libel - without you yourself
physically being in Dallas nor at the location of Geraldine's home
where the aforementioned dispute began. Your litmus test for libel
is different from mine. Grey is arguably a "public figure" who is
published routinely in articles circulated in the hobby. Therefore,
a libel judgement (written) vs. a slander judgment (spoken) against
a "public figure" - requires, 1) truth as determined by a third
party, and 2) malicious execution with intent to harm from a person
who DOES NOT view himself/herself, a) as being aggrieved in some
way, nor, b) as suffering a material loss. To prove malice in a
libel case involving a public figure requires doing harm just for
the sake of doing harm - with NO other reason such as seeking a
material remedy. Internet "extortion" is just as hard to prove as
libel involving a public figure. This "opinion" comes from a person
(me) - who has been threatened with libel and slander lawsuits more
than 30 times during my news career - and who has never been
successfully taken to court nor bled to death in legal fees. You've
seen the stuff I write. I sometimes take things pretty far before I
stop short to prevent getting hung by my own leash.
* As to repercussions - the repercussions will be evident if
Heritage chooses to file a counter-claim against Geraldine for libel
on a published public forum. Everyone is responsible for his or her
own words, as is stated on the disclaimer at the bottom of every
PUBLIC MoPo post. If her attorneys believe she is writing libelous
material, she might stop. Because she hasn't, I gather she's been
told "it's OK."
* As to how this has unfolded at MoPo - it is my personal view that
Geraldine should just post and people who are truly Heritage's
friends should shut up. If you're not Heritage's friend - or if you
don't know its people in person - post away. There are tactical
reasons why Heritage hasn't posted much about this at MoPo. I've
personally talked to Heritage about this. Quite candidly, public
rebuttals from third parties to Geraldine's posts aren't doing the
people in Dallas any favors. Most posts are just character
testimonials and/or third-party opinions about Geraldine's actions
vs. Heritage's. Note that I have NOT publicly commented on
Heritage's behalf - point-by-point to Geraldine's charges as a few
people, in my view, so ridiculously have. You may talk about this
publicly all you want, but you should carefully weigh its impact on
your own reputation as dealers (as it appears it is mostly dealers
rushing to Heritage's defense) - as well as its impact on the
squabbling parties involved.
* In David vs. Goliath battles, I never dismiss the possibility that
the little guy, despite everything - may still win. In the
"disproportional" court of opinion at MoPo - it appears Geraldine is
wrong and Heritage is right. But in the court of "public" opinion
OUTSIDE of MoPo, I wouldn't be surprised if consumers would FEEL THE
OPPOSITE, regardless of the facts. At the end of the day, favorable
testimonials from dealers about other dealers - DON'T MATTER TO
CONSUMERS - as much as favorable testimonials from RETAIL CUSTOMERS
about those same dealers. Whether we're talking about posters,
refrigerators or used cars, this principle rarely changes and is
practically etched in stone. - d.
----------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:50:41 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: [email protected]
David
I think you have mis-characterized what is going on this thread somewhat
No one has accused Geraldine of anything, or at least I certainly
haven't. Why has anyone other than Grey commented? well that's
simple.. Geraldine has posted to a public forum with many members. I
have seen both collectors and dealers comment and Grey himself
commented to one of her earlier posts. Most posts have been pretty
fair to both sides. I.E. none of us can know if Geraldine did or did
not send the posters she declares are missing, or if she mistakenly
stating that she has, not knowing these posters will be found at a
later date in their home.
In any case, her claim has a hard way to go. She stated pretty
simply she got $11,000 for some poster that she did not know that
Charlie sent or she sent or who knows who sent (as some much of her
posts are somewhat confusing), so that says to me that she really
isn't sure on any level what was sent as she thinks she sent some
valuable poster, but had no idea she had actually sent a different
and more valuable poster.
She is also here, on MoPo, specifically for the purpose it seems of
disparaging Rudy & Heritage. Her posts are not benign by any stretch
of the imagination and and it has been getting repeated continually
for several weeks. I think it's only natural that quite a few people
will chime in on such posts as they are designed to elicit a
response from people.
My suggestion to Geraldine would be that if she feels she has enough
proof to show she did indeed send these posters, that she go to the
forum that would produce a judgement in her favor: the courts
system, or via direct negotiation with Heritage and that posting her
problem here to MoPo would therefore not be the correct forum for
her dispute. However I do not agree with some other people that she
should not post on MoPo her dispute. She certainly can, but she will
get a response from someone of course.
Of course, we actually already know that she has negotiated with
Heritage on the issue, Heritage disputes her claim, but offered to
give to the charity of her choice the proposed value of these
posters. We know all this not because Grey posted it, but because
Geraldine posted it. None the less, it is apparent that Geraldine
feels that she and not some charity should get the money for these
posters that she says she sent, are not present on any inventory,
and that Heritage says they did not receive them and it feels
unseemly to them to pay her thousands of dollars for posters they
don't believe she sent them.
How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation David??
do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the
charity of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all
these circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to
repeatedly and purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without repercussions?
----------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:42:52 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: [email protected]
This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad
this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take
her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".
My goodness, no kidding. I wish people would stop "extrapolating
the motives of" and/or "speaking on behalf of" Heritage. If it
wants, it can chime in. All of these "testimonials" are
sickening. I think Grey is a fine guy, but it's wild to read the
genuflecting posts which give Heritage all the benefit of the doubt
while casting Geraldine as a senile loon. On one hand people stop
short of calling her a liar, but regardless of any errors she may
have made (and it appears she has made a few) - it's also clear that
a WAY-too-disproportionate number of "rebuking' responses have come
from dealers - with only a few posts from collectors like Carlos,
who has no dog in this race, yet who applauds the discussion of
things that sometimes go awry in the hobby. If you are tired of
this thread and/or want it to die on its own, stop responding. But
some of you guys are unreal. (And geez, it's always the alpha-males
who feel compelled to defend, rationalize or process the thoughts
and actions of a guy most of us like - while simultaneously doing
the same in an almost entirely adverse way against an
"outsider." The ratio of dealers posting their thoughts about
consumer-related problems - feels like a rigged card deck that's
stacked 10-to-1 against collectors. Lurkers can't feel good about
the way this has played out on MoPo. And I'd bet more than a few
who've quietly read some of the posts thus far - are taking mental
notes of who they will buy, sell or consign their very valuable
collections in the future. -d.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:10:29 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: [email protected]
I guess I just come at this from a different perspective, having never
been in court or been sued or been arrested. I would not pay someone
for something I did not do, but I guess that is just me.
On the other hand, if Geraldine is simply lying, WHY is she doing so?
What is she gaining by this? This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washigton", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad
this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take
her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".
Bruce
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.
