Richard, et al: I was not referring to a comment from Mr. Mannheim. I was referring to a very generalized notion of "all you guys stick together", a notion which has been advanced in various posts over the years by various folks. I just don't think that the fact that there is a certain empathy among dealers (with all the cooperation and competition that being in the same business implies) means that dishonesty in business is overlooked. I think most of us are as disconcerted by events like the one experienced by Mr. Mannheim.
K. On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Richard C Evans wrote: > I didn't really pick up on the elements branding all dealers that way, but I > wouldn't be as sensitive to it from this side of the fence. > > Unless it's the first paragraph of Mr Mannheim's post, which does paint with > a broad brushstroke. > > Given his predicament, and that this niche interest does continue to punch > impressively above its weight in the scandal department, I guess it's > understandable. > > I'm sure most collectors consider you guys and the majority of dealers decent > and above board. > > Aside from the tiny minority directly involved with these scandals, I imagine > the frustration on this side is that whenever one comes along there's an > element that want it to be off limits. > Likewise with the resurrection of The Outlaw issue, shouted down when very > relevantly yet another appeared for sale. > > Don't know whether that would be down to personal allegiances, but if it is > just a well meaning, if desperate, spraying of air freshener over the image > of the hobby, it appears counterproductive. > > > On 18 Aug 2012, at 03:05, Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: > >> I echo Kirby's comments >> >> >> At 07:04 PM 8/17/2012, Kirby McDaniel wrote: >>> Robert, >>> >>> I am glad you took the time to answer this. As a poster dealer, I get very >>> annoyed with people on the list who want to brand all >>> dealers as chiselers. But people like Ken create the environment that >>> encourages just that kind of belief. >>> >>> I am sorry that you were taken for this rather unsavory ride, and I hope >>> you recover your losses. >>> >>> Good luck, >>> Kirby McDaniel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kirby McDaniel >>> MovieArt Original Film Posters >>> P.O. Box 4419 >>> Austin TX 78765-4419 >>> 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net >>> mobile 512 589 5112 >>> >>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Robert C. Mannheim wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Rick, >>>> >>>> I don’t normally answer postings about pending cases for reasons obvious >>>> to anyone outside ‘poster-land’ where you seemingly reside; but, >>>> unfortunately, reality has to creep into every venue once in awhile to >>>> remind its denizens that there are rules of civilized conduct and >>>> standards of honesty/integrity that apply – even to dealers and within >>>> thisniche of collectables …………. >>>> >>>> You wrote, “The topping on the cake seems to be that Mannheim was less >>>> than visibly concerned for 4 years until all these balls starting rolling >>>> simultaneously !!! Am i missing something here??” >>>> >>>> The answer is: YES you are missing a lot. >>>> >>>> I have been a quiet collector of this genre since about 1970 when my first >>>> introduction was a solicitation to buy a distributor’s warehouse with >>>> approximately 300,000 posters for the then overwhelming price of $10,000 >>>> (about 3-cents apiece). Four of us, all college grads just getting >>>> started, couldn’t put that money together between us! >>>> >>>> I have known Dave Bishop and Ken Schacter since about 1994-1995 and I >>>> traveled with Schacter to New York, London and other venues to buy >>>> posters. After establishing what I thought was a friendship and business >>>> relationship, I made about $500,000 in loans to these partners in 2005; >>>> and, later another $750,000 to Schacter, alone, in 2008-2009. >>>> >>>> So, when my friend Bishop ran into trouble making repayments in 2007, I >>>> didn’t run to court – rather, I granted extension after extension until >>>> BOTH stopped paying on loans around July 2009. Even then, I hadn’t >>>> discovered that my 2005 loan money had been ill-used to buy ONE METROPOLIS >>>> POSTER instead of the promised large collection of sci-fi/horror material >>>> that was supposed to include rare 1930’s Universal items. >>>> >>>> When I filed the first lawsuit to recover my 2005 loan from Bishop, I was >>>> not aware I had been a victim of a fraud. That 2009 lawsuit was simply >>>> brought as a breach of his contract – the failure to repay a loan to me. >>>> Around July 2009, Schacter decided that my lawsuit against his buddy >>>> entitled him to also screw me out of my then $585,000 in outstanding >>>> loans. Thus, in October 2009, when all this was first really coming down, >>>> I finally ran a Google search – Schacter + Poster – and was shocked to >>>> find some 150 articles about a November 2005 purchase of the Metropolis >>>> poster – with my October 2005 loan funds. It then became immediately >>>> evident why I had not been repaid on my loans to Bishop/Schacter. >>>> >>>> Since then, Schacter and his attorneys have pulled every dirty trick – >>>> equivalent to the resistance encountered by Ralph Nader when suing >>>> Chevrolet for the “unsafe at any speed” Corvair case ( >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed) which case later became >>>> the subject of a similar movie: “Class Action.” Perhaps this simile will >>>> help you understand how [il]legal tactics of delay and concealment slow >>>> down justice. Nonetheless, these tactics will not stop the Federal >>>> freight train now bearing down on Bishop/Schacter. >>>> >>>> Hopefully, with this additional information, you may now understand my >>>> situation and why things take so long. The truth is difficult to discover >>>> and prove in a court of law when dealing with liars. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Richard C Evans <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012, 9:56 >>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] Mannheim, Metropolis and manipulation >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU >>>> >>>> On 17 Aug 2012, at 01:51, Rix Posterz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Thankfully all of this Mannheim/Schacter drama hasn't yet appeared much >>>> on MoPo. Hey, if you're reallu interested, just Google >>>> "Mannheim,/Schacter lawsuit" and you'll find all the info you're looking >>>> for. I think (I hope) most members of MoPo would hopefully prefer other >>>> subjects to be discussed. I hope others agree. >>>> Rick >>>> >>>> In a message dated 8/16/2012 5:29:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >>>> [email protected] writes: >>>> This stream of evidence that has been filtering through my lens of >>>> perception has left some nagging questions... >>>> >>>> Hopefully and fitfully someone can indeed answer...there is no pleasure >>>> here..just concern >>>> >>>> #1..10. On May 20, [2011], at the specific instruction of Grey Smith of >>>> Heritage Auctions, Inc. (“Heritage”) wired $125,000 to the Debtor’s >>>> (undisclosed) Canadian Bank Account with the Bank of Nova Scotia ending >>>> account # 6925 as an advance on the consignment sale. Heritage on the same >>>> day also wired $50,000 to the Debtor’s local Chase Account ending in 429. >>>> Attached as Exhibit “C” are copies of the correspondence directing the >>>> wire transfers and the wire transfers from Heritage. >>>> >>>> ME...."If this is indeed true...is this standard practice?" >>>> >>>> #2...12. The Heritage Auction #7040 included the sale of the following >>>> valuable assets with the included buyer’s premium. >>>> >>>> >>>> This Island Earth Insert $ 896.25 >>>> Ghost of Frankenstein Insert $ 7,170.00 >>>> Werewolf of London [insert] $47,800.00 >>>> Phantom of the Opera [1943 insert] $ 1,804.45 >>>> Invaders From Mars [1953 1-sheet] $ 1,792.50 >>>> >>>> 19. In reality, however, the Debtor had obtained the unwitting help of >>>> (identity upheld), to complete his fraudulent scheme to defeat a secured >>>> judgment lien held by Robert C. Mannheim –by transferring $125,000 out of >>>> the country and $50,000 to a local bank account – and later the same money >>>> and assets were concealed from the bankruptcy estate while Debtor retained >>>> ownership of the purportedly sold items. >>>> >>>> 20. At the Debtor’s specific request, (******) agreed to bid on and >>>> purchase several of the Debtor’s most valuable items being sold through >>>> the Heritage July 11, 2011 auction; then, Debtor would directly or >>>> indirectly pay for these items; and, finally, (*****) would return the >>>> items to Debtor.[fn] >>>> >>>> [fn] The Debtor’s true intent of attempting to conceal assets from Movant, >>>> and ultimately from this Court and this Chapter 7 Trustee, by way of >>>> orchestrating a false sale, were apparently unknown at the time to (*****) >>>> who was only helping a friend. >>>> >>>> 21. As set out in the email chain between the Debtor and (****) attached >>>> as Exhibit “A” to the separately filed Declaration, (****) specifically >>>> purchased the following five items for the Debtor, from the Heritage July >>>> 22, 2011 Auction. A redacted copy of the invoice from that auction is >>>> attached to as Exhibit “B” identifying these items and their purchase >>>> price: >>>> >>>> This Island Earth Insert $ 896.25 >>>> Ghost of Frankenstein Insert $ 7,170.00 >>>> Werewolf of London [insert] $47,800.00 >>>> Phantom of the Opera [1943 insert] $ 1,804.45 >>>> Invaders From Mars [1953 1-sheet] $ 1,792.50 >>>> >>>> ME...."All of this seems strange and I highly doubt the exchanges of >>>> assets in this matter seemed less than dubious to those involved... >>>> >>>> MORE ME..."The most unfortunate part is that the claim filed within the >>>> State of California implicates that the business it has retained as >>>> council to the trustee, is the exact business that allegedly aided in the >>>> post-bankruptcy sale that aided in the further implication in law breaking >>>> by Ken Schacter...is this a quagmire or is/can this be viewed as >>>> accessory???" >>>> >>>> The topping on the cake seems to be that Mannheim was less than visibly >>>> concerned for 4 years until all these balls starting rolling >>>> simultaneously !!! >>>> >>>> Am i missing something here?? >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> 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.
