All Poster Forum
Movie Posters => General Discussion => Topic started by: erik1925 on April 09, 2012, 09:51:23 PM
-
Kerry Haggard, who fleeced collectors out of millions, when he masterminded the creation of, and began selling fake Universal horror posters a number of years ago, was sentenced today, after a 3 yr court battle. Jim Gresham, one of those defrauded, posted this to MOPO earlier this afternoon. I am sure there are members here, as well, who will find this an informative read, as well as those that had been following the case:
After three long years I am happy to say that Kerry Haggard was
sentenced. The Judge threw the book at him, giving him the maximum
sentence possible of 78 months in Federal Prison. She would have
given him more time, but then it might have opened the door for an
appeal. 78 months is the maximum with no appeal opportunity. She
obviously didnt like Haggard and lectured him for about 20 minutes.
He requested a transfer to the Atlanta Federal prison. She refused to
let him transfer to a Federal prison closer to his home in Atlanta.
As a matter of fact, she also gave him three years probation after
that, requiring it to be held in New York also. Which means, he will
have to live in that area. He cant go to Georgia to do his time or
his probation.
In terms of restitution, she sentenced him to $1.377 million to be
reimbursed to the hobby. Unfortunately, they cant make him give
posters back. They can hold his feet to the fire, but can't actually
make him give them back. The good news is that Agent Mike Mullahy has
found at least $300,000 in good posters. (They also confiscated many
other fakes.) The Judge order that all funds raised from the sale of
these posters go to the victims, not the Government. Each victim was
listed in the sentencing, with the amount due to them for
reimbursement.
It was also implied that there may be more charges coming. I am not
certain of this, but it sounds like there are more potential legal
actions in Haggard's future. I can't convey how much disdain the
judge had for Haggard.
There are some real positives from today. First of all, the judge was
greatly influenced by the letters that everyone sent to her. She said
she had never received so many letters in a case, ever! Thank you to
each person who wrote a letter. Also a thank you to Robert Ragovin
and Glenn Damato who spoke in court along with myself. Ralph De Luca
was also there lending support. I want to send a special thanks to
Sean Linkenback. He knows why, and thats all I will say about that.
Our hobby owes a special thanks to the FBI. Specifically Agent Mike
Mullahy. He did a fantastic job. He talked to me day & night. I
remember one time he contacted me at 10:30 on a Sunday evening. He
went over and above.
Another positive is the fact that our legal system does in fact work!
My only regret is that Haggard is still lying and still trying to
hold the posters for his own gain. But, the game is far from over.
Overall today was a wonderful day for our hobby. I personally thank
God for what he did today. Jim Gresham
--
Jim Gresham
18501 Henry Ct
Ray Mi 48096
-
Best result that could be hoped for I suppose. clap
-
Wow, that is great. Well done to all involved. No crook better take on Jim! That's his second win... I think he won(?) a case against Debi Jacobson previously. I wonder how much $ the authorities will be able to recoup from Haggard.
-
Jim wins because he actually has the means to take 'issues' to court.
Might sound harsh, but it's true.
-
Jim wins because he actually has the means to take 'issues' to court.
not sure what you mean by this Chris.. this was a criminal case brought by the Government, not a civil lawsuit between parties. Jim was a victim as were many others who only have a voice during investigations, testimonies & sentencing, but have no standing to bring such a case before the courts as a criminal action. Kudos go to FBI Agent Mullaly and US Prosecutor Preet Bharara for pursuing the investigation and determining they could file charges & have a good chance of getting a conviction (Federal authorities generally only file charges when they think they have a high probability of winning)
among the best parts of where that good ol' boy Kerry has to serve his sentence - there ain't no grits in a Yankee kitchen
-
not sure what you mean by this Chris.. this was a criminal case brought by the Government, not a civil lawsuit between parties. Jim was a victim as were many others who only have a voice during investigations, testimonies & sentencing, but have no standing to bring such a case before the courts as a criminal action. Kudos go to FBI Agent Mullaly and US Prosecutor Preet Bharara for pursuing the investigation and determining they could file charges & have a good chance of getting a conviction (Federal authorities generally only file charges when they think they have a high probability of winning)
among the best parts of where that good ol' boy Kerry has to serve his sentence - there ain't no grits in a Yankee kitchen
You're mainly right Rich. I was implying that Jim had the funds to hire a lawyer etc to following through to recoup his losses.
But it's the government's case not Jim's as you say so my implication does not really ring true here.
However, I thought Gresham did post something about being out of pocket quite a bit of $ just being involved in the case (I mean separate from the value of the lost posters)???
-
I totally missed this post and posted a link to the NY Post article .. Mods feel free to delete my thread ;)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/fraud_is_monster_bashed_ig7rKuBLexA3VsJRgZ7uHI?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Manhattan
-
Another online article, from the Athens Banner-Herald:
http://onlineathens.com/breaking-news/2012-04-10/commerce-man-sentenced-forging-horror-movie-posters
-
Not to nitpick, but the Court does not have say over where the Federal Bureau of Prisons houses it's inmates. They can offer a recommendation (ie: to please put so-and-so here or not), but it's still up to them on where they go. While they usually try and honor requests, it's not mandatory and subject to other various factors. By policy, they have to house an inmate within 250 miles of their confirmed residence. Nor can the Court specify what security level the inmate will be housed at.
While the Court does have the power (and oversees) Federal Supervised Release (aka Probation), the sentencing judge does not get the final say. If the defendant doesn't have a residence in a certain area, they generally won't force them to live there. Technically, by default, they are supervised out of whatever district they were sentenced out of. In this case it looks like New York. However, once released from prison, he can petition the US Probation Office (and Court) to move his supervision to where he actually has a residence. Assuming the other office accepts him, he can live there.
-
Thanks for the straightforward, court-related information, Enki. Good stuff! thumbup
-
Latest developments in the fake poster scandal:
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/2013/01/23/vintage-poster-scandal-update-1931-dracula-poster-lawsuits-default-judgments-profiles-in-history-vs-thomas-rega-thomas-rega-vs-studio-conservation/
Thomas Riga obtained a $263,000 "default" judgment against Diana Jeffrey of Studio C, who "restored" the "missing" (actually, deliberately torn off) corners of an S2 chromium litho reproduction of a Dracula one sheet. Apparently, she added back the missing Morgan litho numbers (per the client's instructions) and linen-backed the S2. Apparently she was aware it was a reissue when she "restored" it. Apparently Riga consigned it to Profiles in History, Poster Mountain inexcusably "authenticated" it because it was a litho (not a digital reprint), and Rich and others on NS4 revealed that it was an altered S2 (http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/6364/Dracula#.UP_jw4njk5w).
Profiles canceled the auction and sued and obtained a default judgment against Riga, who in turn - for unclear reasons - sued Studio C in a New Jersey court.
I'm not sure if Haggard was involved in this and it's unclear if Thomas Rega, the plaintiff in this case and the person who consigned the poster to Profiles, was aware that it was fake.
Here are the earlier articles:
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/2009/09/30/1931-dracula-one-sheet-poster-determined-to-be-fake-pulled-from-next-weeks-profiles-in-history-auction/
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/2010/02/10/profiles-in-history-files-lawsuits-against-fraudulant-movie-poster-auction-consignors/
#1 lesson from this chapter of the saga: ALWAYS DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A LAWSUIT EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY. Jeffreys claimed she couldn't afford an attorney but she could filed an answer to the complaint and tried to defend herself the best she could. Instead, she wrote a series of letters to the Judge. BAD PLAN! She was hit with an automatic default judgment that will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overturn. (She would have to prove that the New Jersey court did not have proper "jurisdiction" over the case but it appears it did have proper jurisdiction since she made contractual arrangements with her client in New Jersey.)
#2 lesson: If you're a restorer, don't "restore" a reproduction to make it appear indistinguishable from an original.
Here's Jeffrey's announcement to MOPO:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mopo-l@listserv.american.edu/msg54551.html
-
Fark, thanks for the NSF lmk, it's been a while and I reread it all.
Richard Evans (my long lost cousin) should be congratulated again for his work.
Edit, I am still unclear how Riga could have a case against Studio C.
-
There must be more to the story... This judgement just doesn't sound right.
-
You have to understand that default judgments are common as dirt. It just means the defendant failed to answer the complaint within the applicable time limits. It doesn't matter if the complaint is frivolous or meritorious.
You can't reverse a default judgment by proving the allegations were false or incorrect. You can only show:
(1) You never received notice of the lawsuit, specifically you were not properly served.
(2) The court that issued the default judgment did not have personal jurisdiction over you. "Personal jurisdiction" is a complex subject. Making a long story short, the question is "do you have enough connections to the jurisdiction?" Here, it's undisputed that Jeffrey had contractual arrangements with Raga, who is a citizen of New Jersey. Depending on the circumstances, that MAY be enough. We don't know what other "connections" she had. Maybe she traveled to the state. Maybe she regularly deals with customers in New Jersey. We don't know if she's raised the jurisdiction issue yet.
Again, the key lesson is that you can't just ignore a lawsuit when you've been served. You've got to actively oppose the lawsuit by filing an answer and litigating the case. If you do nothing, the other side automatically wins.
-
This just further justifies that most prominent restorer's are liars/cheats and don't really care about the hobby or the actual restoration/conservation of posters... If Studio C sanded the back of the S2 they knew it was a bad poster. Probably got what they had coming... If Poster Mountain didn't take the time to get it right on a Dracula OS (uh duh - you may want to spend more time on this one); how sweat shop is that? They didn't care, just making a buck. Guess you may want to add a 'known original image comparison' to your analysis...
Lesson: Steer clear of resto jobs; unless you know what to look for...
-
You have to understand that default judgments are common as dirt. It just means the defendant failed to answer the complaint within the applicable time limits. It doesn't matter if the complaint is frivolous or meritorious.
You can't reverse a default judgment by proving the allegations were false or incorrect. You can only show:
(1) You never received notice of the lawsuit, specifically you were not properly served.
(2) The court that issued the default judgment did not have personal jurisdiction over you. "Personal jurisdiction" is a complex subject. Making a long story short, the question is "do you have enough connections to the jurisdiction?" Here, it's undisputed that Jeffrey had contractual arrangements with Raga, who is a citizen of New Jersey. Depending on the circumstances, that MAY be enough. We don't know what other "connections" she had. Maybe she traveled to the state. Maybe she regularly deals with customers in New Jersey. We don't know if she's raised the jurisdiction issue yet.
Exactly
While it is ridiculous that this judgment would be levied against her (and that she would be sued by the consignor - if Rega was the one who sent it to her to be 'restored' and also the consignor to Profiles) if she didn't defend herself as per the Rules the letters to the Judge were not going to accomplish anything.
Still shocking nonetheless that she could be considered a guitly party in any of this UNLESS there is much more to the story...
-
Restorers only do what they are asked to do (generally). From there is it really their problem if the poster is then handed off as an original? They are not the ones doing that.
Diane only got messed up in this (apart from the restoration) when she blew the whistle on the Dracula at Profiles (believing it to be the same one she had worked on) - If I remember correctly.
Where is the lawsuit against Poster Mountain?
-
Mel, you should draft up some iron clad contracts and sell them to these guys...
-
Restorers only do what they are asked to do (generally). From there is it really their problem if the poster is then handed off as an original? They are not the ones doing that.
But if you know something is off it is always your call whether or not to do the work... For a Dracula OS I would have expected more caution...
-
Let Haggard's sad ass be a warning to any would-be poster counterfeiters.
You will eventually get caught and you will eventually swing.
Next up, Rochester?
cheers
-
But if you know something is off it is always your call whether or not to do the work... For a Dracula OS I would have expected more caution...
That's like saying the Gunsmith kills people....
If Diane had not blown the whistle would the sale have gone through?? I think it's a disgrace she's been treated this way. The U.S. court system sucks...
-
Originalprop.com posted Rega's affidavit in the earlier case here:
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1931-Dracula-Poster-Scandal-Update-Thomas-Rega-Declaration.pdf
In that affidavit he is very vague about how and when he obtained the Dracula poster. He claims he paid a "significant sum" for the poster and is a "victim."
Presumably he provided more information in the later New Jersey lawsuit against Jeffrey.
Based on Jeffrey's letters to the judge, Rega sued her for defamation, specifically that she indicated to others that he (Rega) knew it was a reproduction.
Jeffrey also gave an affidavit in the earlier case here:
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1931-Dracula-Poster-Scandal-Update-Studio-C-Diane-Jeffry-Declaration.pdf
She claims that Rega sent it to a second restorer for further alteration.
Just to be clear, the original S2 poster is not a "fake" or illegitimate in any way.
-
If Diane had not blown the whistle would the sale have gone through?? I think it's a disgrace she's been treated this way. The U.S. court system sucks...
Agree.
The timeline of her (provable) actions seem to surely indicate her innocence and for that matter, her honesty.
Is there no comments with the judgement by the judge that indicates how he came to such a judgement/figure (or did I miss that somewhere)?
-
It would be interesting to know where Mr Rega purchased the S2,and who may have indicated to him that the poster was an original.
Also intriguing that although he paid a significant amount for the poster,he cannot afford an airline ticket.
Stew
-
That's like saying the Gunsmith kills people....
If Diane had not blown the whistle would the sale have gone through?? I think it's a disgrace she's been treated this way. The U.S. court system sucks...
OK, if someone sent me a Scarface with the missing printer alignment deals and asked me to fix all four corners and add the alignment deals back in - shouldn't that be a clue that there may be something wrong with the poster. (and yes guys I know there is a huge price difference but the principle is the same)
Dracula OS; All the printer's info missing, the paper not feeling right and then sanding the paper thin... She knew something was off (my assumption). Similarly to a bar tender being responsible for cutting off a drunkard, I think restorer's in our hobby should take responsibility when it comes to what they restore. This is especially true for 10K plus items. I do think with the lack of knowledge concerning restoration and what to look for, it would be very easy to sell restored fakes...
I mean in order to sand something down you would have to temporarily adhere it in the process. There would be more work to do this...
She does get some merit for blowing the whistle, but should not have done the work with out some written agreement regarding the purpose of the restoration.
-
I am between a rock and a hard place regards what Charlie said.
Diana was simply fullfilling a clients request to do a restoration in a certain way,it would seem Diana had some soul searching with herself,
"something" didn`t feel right about being asked to restore missing pieces that she could not prove for certain deserved to be there,specifically missing text.
Diana states that after she carried out her contracted restoration requirements from her client,"someone" else carried out further restoration work..has Diana explained anywhere how she would know this ?.
Just askin guys..nothing else...
Stew
-
There is some more discussion on the moral obligation of restorers in that NS4 thread I do believe...
-
I thought I remember reading that Diane purposefully put the wrong litho number on the missing section at the bottom... just on the off chance that the seller was up to no good. If that is the case, I think she did the right thing. You can't necessarily blame her for backing and restoring a worthless poster from a paying customer... that happens all the time (check some of the garbage in Poster Mountain's database!) and you can never really know what the customers motivations might be.
Personally I think the judgement is outrageous and a perversion of our justice system.
-
There is some more discussion on the moral obligation of restorers in that NS4 thread I do believe...
Morally though Diana did the proper thing right?
When Diana thought that a certain poster that she may have worked on,appears for sale as original 31 she asked questions.
Mr Rega states that the only corner restoration he asked for was to hide pin holes,he mentions nothing about adding missing text in his letter to the Court... :-\
Stew
-
This just further justifies that most prominent restorer's are liars/cheats and don't really care about the hobby or the actual restoration/conservation of posters... If Studio C sanded the back of the S2 they knew it was a bad poster. Probably got what they had coming...
incorrect Charlie. as a restorer, she is tasked with restoration. If I send her an injet print and ask it be linenbacked - that's what she does. Diane didn't do anything more or less than her stated job - to restore or linenback and she actually helped by putting wrong information so that if said poster was passed off as something it wasn't, it could be discovered. She is guilty of nothing except failing to get representation, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, though it is an outcome that could easily be predicted (and was) if you don't have representation.
-
I must disagree Charlie, there's no crime until the crime is committed. As a restorer your job is to restore as your client wants.
If I sent a van to get the suspension beefed up, and the motor tuned up, it doesn't mean I'm going to do a bank job.
Plus at that end of the poster financial scale. If the poster was going to be sold as original, it would get authenticated anyway. Which it did, only badly... you do the maths. In my book Diane is innocent of any crime, and the fact she has to pay that fine is absolutely wrong. The fact IS She stopped the crime in mid tracks...
-
incorrect Charlie. as a restorer, she is tasked with restoration. If I send her an injet print and ask it be linenbacked - that's what she does. Diane didn't do anything more or less than her stated job - to restore or linenback and she actually helped by putting wrong information so that if said poster was passed off as something it wasn't, it could be discovered. She is guilty of nothing except failing to get representation, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, though it is an outcome that could easily be predicted (and was) if you don't have representation.
+1
I didn`t know Diana added false info on the poster..
Why Diana did not include this info in her letters to the Judges is a shame,may have helped out a lot.
Thanks Harry.
Stew
-
Diane got hosed. That's a crime in itself.
-
Thomas Rega smells like a real rat. He was vague on where and how he got this S2, and vague on how the damage occurred. Studio C was asked by Rega to restore the poster, so that Rega could frame it and hang it on his own wall. Low and behold, a short time later, it is consigned to Profiles. How convenient!
This email excerpt to Poster Mountain from Diane explains much. Here, she stated to John that she thought the poster was a possible reissue or something other. Because Rega said it just going on his wall, why wouldn't she restore it ( in her mind, a possible reissue or repro), as he asked? Only when she saw it consigned to Profiles, did she blow the whistle, as the poster was then being advertised as "the real deal":
"My main concern, and still is, the fact that I questioned the piece I had in here, at the time, due to several items. The piece did not have the “feel”,: of normal poster paper, and it also had some type of remnant backing on the back, sort of like a layer of cardboard. Also, both bottom corners had been meticulously ripped out, only in the section where the text would have been in the borders causing me to think it might be a re-issue or something. I questioned my client on this at the time. He offered little insight to all of this, and stated, its just going to be framed. I did the restoration, and when it came time for the text issue, he dictated what he wanted us to write in that area, which we did, knowing that it probably was not correct."
Even Jim Gresham, a well respected Uni horror collector, who was taken by the Haggard scandal, had this to say on MOPO, yesterday, about Rega:
"I place Thomas Rega in the same low esteem that I have for Kerry Haggard. Frankly, I am not at all sure they didnt know each other and work together in deceiving our hobby. Both are no good crooks."
This guy Rega was out to scam a potential buyer, ala Haggard, via the Profiles auction. Diane, in her thought, was restoring a possible "reissue or something," for a private owner. Once it was restored, however, Rega then had an item that he presented to Profiles as a genuine '31 OS. And when Diane started to ask questions, in order to make sure that some modern litho wasnt being offered under false pretenses, she got bit, big time.
Had Diane wanted to "cheat and lie," or thumb her nose at the hobby, she would have kept her mouth shut, rather than speak up and ask questions about this poster when it resurfaced at Profiles.
Instead, for her efforts and 'alerting the media,' she is now saddled with a $260K+ judgment.
Talk about injustice, originating from this character, Thomas Rega. moron1
-
Diane got hosed. That's a crime in itself.
Yep, terrible situation to be in.
Stew
-
Can she appeal, or is that the end of it??
-
Is Mr Rega known to the experts here or is he just a random guy?
Stew
-
Can she appeal, or is that the end of it??
If funds where unavailable for representation,I would think an appeal would be unaffordable too.
Stew
-
One has to hope she will somehow be deemed 'judgement proof' and thereby, although the default judgement is there and on the books, it will never be collected
-
Surely the legal system there would make it clear what is required to be done by a defendant and the repercussions of inaction?
I agree she should be able to restore as per customers instructions. Alternative is many restorers engaged to restore it piecemeal, same result. Restoration should be easily spotted by authenticators. But then again after seeing some of MP Gradings (http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/9549/INVADERS-FROM-WHERE-WHAT-THE-HELL-IS-THIS?page=2#reply-114775), I think authenticators are next to useless, even with the bleeding obvious.
-
One has to hope she will somehow be deemed 'judgement proof' and thereby, although the default judgement is there and on the books, it will never be collected
What does judgement proof mean Chris?
Stew
-
Next up, Rochester?
The minty white scandal is another episode I`d love you guys to explain for the rest of us..
Stew
-
Dracula OS; All the printer's info missing, the paper not feeling right and then sanding the paper thin... She knew something was off (my assumption). Similarly to a bar tender being responsible for cutting off a drunkard, I think restorer's in our hobby should take responsibility when it comes to what they restore. This is especially true for 10K plus items. I do think with the lack of knowledge concerning restoration and what to look for, it would be very easy to sell restored fakes...
I mean in order to sand something down you would have to temporarily adhere it in the process. There would be more work to do this...
She does get some merit for blowing the whistle, but should not have done the work with out some written agreement regarding the purpose of the restoration.
Totally agree with you Charlie.
-
Surely the legal system there would make it clear what is required to be done by a defendant and the repercussions of inaction?
She presumably received a summons that explicitly warned her that a default judgment would be entered if she failed to answer. See this New Jersey summons:
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/forms/10792_civil_action_summons.pdf
If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within 35 days, the court may enter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs of suit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property to pay all or part of the judgment.
She made the biggest mistake of her life by ignoring this summons.
-
Totally agree with you Charlie.
Know what you mean Mel,although hindsight is 20/20
Tough for everyone involved.
Stew
-
I assume she felt the lawsuit against her was frivolous to some degree and that's why she did not undertake the appropriate procedures.
All she had to do was answer - even if she was going to defend herself.
Regardless, from an empathic position, I truly think it is a shame this has happened to her...
-
Regardless, from an empathic position, I truly think it is a shame this has happened to her...
Absolutely.
Stew
-
incorrect Charlie. as a restorer, she is tasked with restoration. If I send her an injet print and ask it be linenbacked - that's what she does. Diane didn't do anything more or less than her stated job - to restore or linenback and she actually helped by putting wrong information so that if said poster was passed off as something it wasn't, it could be discovered. She is guilty of nothing except failing to get representation, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, though it is an outcome that could easily be predicted (and was) if you don't have representation.
Well then what keeps you from selling consigned fakes as original? At some point you have to take a moral stance about the consequences of your actions. I am not arguing whether or not what she did was legal or not. However, she admitted to the poster being 'off' thinking it could be a fake. What compounds the issue is that it was a freaking Dracula OS. None of us would be talking about this if it was a Pretty Woman OS... You have to be aware of your surroundings with something that significant.
It's like that guy who put new paper on old lobbies; come on... Unless I grossly underestimate the living made from this service, the poster could and should have been turned away... Unless she knew what she was doing (with significant evidence) and got cold feet - which may also be why she didn't respond to the summons...
-
My old law firm got a default judgment against a very famous (and rich) NBA player.
His wife was personally served with the usual summons and complaint at his house and apparently ignored it.
He appealed the default judgment and lost.
We made arrangements to garnish his salary and he - finally - paid off the judgment.
-
I must disagree Charlie, there's no crime until the crime is committed. As a restorer your job is to restore as your client wants.
So if your client asks you to do something highly suspect, that's ok? Not IMO. You have to have some integrity/strength of character with anything you do. If this was an err on her part thinking it was 100% real then fine, a mistake. But she openly admits to thinking it off, even changing the fine print? Sanding the back down. Why sand it down? To make it look more original - that is highly suspect. Perhaps just poor judgement on her part. By not responding to the summons this may be the obvious flaw.
The judgment amount is way to high though. I wonder what they based it on - the potential selling price of the poster?
-
My old law firm got a default judgment against a very famous (and rich) NBA player.
His wife was personally served with the usual summons and complaint at his house and apparently ignored it.
He appealed the default judgment and lost.
We made arrangements to garnish his salary and he - finally - paid off the judgment.
Shouldn't the NBA player been served the summons, not the wife? What if they didnt get on and she tosses it in the bin to his detriment. That does make sense to me.
-
So if she couldn't afford attorney fees how will she pay this judgement? Will this then bankrupt Studio C?
-
Well then what keeps you from selling consigned fakes as original? At some point you have to take a moral stance about the consequences of your actions. I am not arguing whether or not what she did was legal or not. However, she admitted to the poster being 'off' thinking it could be a fake. What compounds the issue is that it was a freaking Dracula OS. None of us would be talking about this if it was a Pretty Woman OS... You have to be aware of your surroundings with something that significant.
It's like that guy who put new paper on old lobbies; come on... Unless I grossly underestimate the living made from this service, the poster could and should have been turned away... Unless she knew what she was doing (with significant evidence) and got cold feet - which may also be why she didn't respond to the summons...
You raise some intersesting points Charlie...as I said..its a toughy...
Stew
-
Ok, I checked the New Jersey docket. Apparently, Studio Conservation did try to file an answer but it was "stricken" for being "nonconforming."
The good news is that the default judgment is against "Studio Conservation Inc.," which is a corporation, and not against Diane Jeffrey personally. My corporate law is very rusty but normally it's difficult to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold individual owners or employees of the corporation individually liable. Most small corporations have very few assets.
The other defendant was "Sal Oliveri" of "Film Shows Inc." Both Oliveri and Film Shows settled for an unknown amount. "Film Shows Inc." is associated with "Sandy Oliveri" and produces various compilations. Unclear how they're connected to this case.
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE2/2013-01/Haggard%201.jpg)
-
Studio-C will obviously be forced to close under some circumstances.
Mel, if I recall correctly, the Oliveri are somehow connected to Thomas Regas. My personal belief is that something doesn't smell right with those.
-
Diane should be turning over every rock she has to find out if she has any form of personal liability insurance.
Even with the default judgement her insurer may be able to protect her here...
-
The most recent post to MOPO, from Diane, setting record straight, re: incorrect comments or assumptions made by some that she ignored the summons, or questions about her having to possibly close shop:
Hi All - I did not think that this would result in so much response both here and on other forums. A few comments to address some of the questions that have come up:
When I received the initial complaint, I did not ignore it. I retained an attorney in New Jersey to handle the response. When it became apparent that I would not be able to keep counsel, I figured I would represent myself. New Jersey court informed me that due to my company being a corporation, I was not allowed to. At this point I knew the end result would be a Default Judgment. So it was no surprise to me.
On another forum there has been some discussion about restorers and their obligation to their clients vs moral obligation to the hobby. In this case, I did the restoration, knowingly restored incorrect information at the bottom, setting up a red flag on this poster. This poster was sent to John Davis for authenticity, my red flag was changed, obviously to further authenticate the poster.
I publically stated my concerns about the poster and, well, we all know what happened then.
I had planned, well in advance, for the potential ramifications of this case. This will not close Studio C, we are alive and well.
We have all had "unfair things" happen to us in our life and this happens to be one of mine. It is just money and thieves/crooks, not really important stuff. That being said, it has still been such a help receiving all the encouraging words from all of you and you will always have my very heartfelt appreciation.
Diane
People like this are an asset to the hobby. They are not cheats or liars, nor doing a disservice to the hobby in any way.
-
Man the old group from Picture Perfect (PM and Studio C) should put you on retainer. Your confidence in them is rock solid. Who is that Susan gal on NSF I would love to learn more about the crew from Picture Perfect... Temp secretary to top restorer? Juicy stuff. I really think only someone who actually collects and knows what the hobby is about can be legit and avoid being sucked in by thieves. Liar / cheat may be harsh - just turn the poster away.. $$$ its a bitch that never lets go..
-
Susan was one our most beloved personalities in the poster world who sadly died lat year.
-
Susan was one our most beloved personalities in the poster world who sadly died lat year.
Thanks Ari...
She sounds like someone I would have enjoyed getting to know...
-
Studio-C will obviously be forced to close under some circumstances.
Mel, if I recall correctly, the Oliveri are somehow connected to Thomas Regas. My personal belief is that something doesn't smell right with those.
I was given some corrected info thgat Oliveri was an ebay seller not connected to Rega, but who was screwed by Haggard. There are more details, though I'm not sure what the particulars are of the lawsuit issues.
-
Thanks for posting all this. Fascinating thread.
-
I am glad Diane posted on MoPo to clarify all the speculation.
What I find troubling is that, as I understand, Poster Mountain re-restored the Dracula to add the correct litho # (which Diane noted was incorrect) and then advised Profiles it was an authentic poster?!
-
What I find troubling is that, as I understand, Poster Mountain re-restored the Dracula to add the correct litho # (which Diane noted was incorrect) and then advised Profiles it was an authentic poster?!
no adjective describes this blunder
-
Just another article from Bloomberg, back from April 4, 2012, giving another overview of the scandal and sentencing that happened.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-11/frankensteins-fraudster-sentenced-to-6-dot-5-years-in-prison