• Artists and Marketing Your Work: Let’s Keep It Real! Series #2 - Part 2
• Artists and Marketing Your Work: Let’s Keep It Real! Series #2 - Part 1
• Georges Seurat: Neo-French Impressionist
• Self Promoting Yourself as a Visual Artist Starts with You!
• Fine Art Registry® Making a Difference in an Unregulated Art Industry
• Do Your Homework Before Attending a Park West Gallery VIP Auction: Truth to Power #44 Part 4
• Understanding the Park West Gallery VIP Auction: Truth to Power #44 Part 3
• If You Are Even THINKING ABOUT Attending a Park West Gallery VIP Auction: Truth to Power #44 Part 2
• Park West Gallery VIP Auction Events Consumer WARNING: Truth to Power #44 Part 1
• NEW EVIDENCE - Park West Gallery Investment Scheme Objective

FAR Newsletter Sign-Up

Park West Gallery Litigation Update #6:

Park West Gallery Lawyers' Hasty Court Filing Throws Open Pandora's Box

Read the previous Park West Gallery Litigation Updates

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

You would think that with all the money Park West Gallery and its CEO Albert Scaglione have made off the backs of innocent victims that he would be able to afford the cream of the legal crop to defend him and his gallery against the mounting nationwide litigation being filed against them. Okay, if not the cream of the legal crop, then at least halfway skilled legal counsel with the sense of a walnut to perform even the most basic of due diligence BEFORE filing public documents.

Much to the delight of Fine Art Registry®, the most recent flurry of legal filings by Park West Gallery on the day before Christmas Eve now makes it possible for Fine Art Registry to publicly reveal, disclose, disgorge and pretty much lay open a Park West Gallery jugular vein from which will flow enormous amounts of vital information that Fine Art Registry was, until now, prevented from publicly disclosing by a court protective order.

Early on in this litigation, Park West Gallery and its lawyers, fearing that Fine Art Registry would publish the truth elicited from witnesses and documents produced in the litigation, went to the court and whined, cried, screamed, and stomped their feet, pleading with the respective Judges in the litigation pending in the Federal and State court cases that all deposition transcripts and other key materials should NOT be made public. Why? We all know the answer. Park West Gallery feared that the terrible facts of its unfair and deceptive trade practices would be revealed to the public in excruciating detail. Fine Art Registry has believed from the beginning that the public has a right to know how Park West Gallery does business, what the experts and other witnesses have had to say under oath about the artwork the gallery is peddling, including what their own so-called expert witnesses have to say that puts them squarely in the soup - yes even Park West's own experts hang them. After all, what does Park West Gallery have to hide? Plenty as we will reveal in upcoming articles on this subject.

What is a protective order? In litigation, it is an order issued by a court that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions. Park West Gallery is the ONLY party in the current litigation that considered the information "sensitive". Much of the information Park West claims is "sensitive" is damning to Park West Gallery and they know it. Fine Art Registry didn’t want the protective order and fought against it. In fact, no other party in any of the litigation including the victims wanted any of the material protected. Fine Art Registry wanted to expose publicly the naked truth behind the entirety of this litigation. Fine Art Registry felt that all material disclosed in the litigation was and is a matter of public policy and that the art buying public should know what kind of a company Park West Gallery was to deal with. However, Park West Gallery won its protective order.

Park West Gallery Summary Disposition Motions

The recent Summary Disposition filings by Park West Gallery against the victims (on the day before Christmas Eve presumably as a holiday slap in the face to Day and Howard and the other Plaintiffs) are also known as a "Motions for Summary Judgment". In law, a summary disposition or summary judgment is a final decision by a judge, upon a party's motion, that resolves a lawsuit before there is a trial. The party making the motion marshals all the evidence in its favor, compares it to the other side's evidence, and argues that there are no "triable issues of fact." Summary judgment is awarded ONLY if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for the opposing party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial.

The Summary Disposition motions filed by Park West Gallery lawyers were filed as a matter of course. In other words, the Judge in the case set a cut off date for all summary disposition motions to be filed (if any) before the scheduled trial date. Park West Gallery just happened to wait until the day before Christmas Eve - the 11th hour to file its summary disposition motions against the victims. In light of the recent Michigan Court of Appeals order, the trial court will most certainly deny the disingenuous attempt by Park West Gallery to once again screw these victims by using the courts to gain summary judgment against them. The fact that the victims were sold fake, forged, and worthless artwork is a question for the jury to decide, not the Judge. And trust us when we say, there is a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that the jury will hear. We can't imagine that a jury hearing the evidence will do anything but return a verdict in favor of Sharon Day and Julian Howard; so as it stands, there are definitely "triable issues of fact" that do exist whether Park West Gallery likes it or not. Therefore, the Park West Gallery motions for summary disposition will most certainly fail. (See Press Release and Court of Appeals Order)

Park West Gallery's Lawyers Willfully Violate the Precious Park West Protective Order and Screw Park West in the Process

Fine Art Registry has published here in its entirety the Park West Gallery Motion for Summary Disposition as it relates to Sharon Day and Julian Howard, INCLUDING EXHIBITS that Park West Gallery filed as a matter of PUBLIC RECORD. It is important to note that Park West Gallery also filed separate similar motions as to the other Plaintiffs in the Sharon Day and Julian Howard case which will be addressed in future articles. For purposes of this article, however, we will focus entirely on the Motion for Summary Disposition Park West Gallery filed against Day and Howard.

Fine Art Registry looks forward to publicly decimating and gutting the totality of the Park West Gallery motion for summary disposition as it relates to Day and Howard in future articles. But for purposes of this litigation update, we will limit our focus to specifically how Park West Gallery's own lawyers screwed Park West Gallery by violating its own protective order. We can’t imagine that Albert Scaglione is going to be happy with this recent turn of events, or maybe his lawyers don't even have a clue yet as to what they have done. Well, if nothing else, this litigation update will alert them all. We know that Park West and its legal dogs read everything we publish anyway and quite frankly, our frequent reports are probably how Albert Scaglione keeps up with what his silly lawyers are up to, though they are more like the Keystone Kops than a legal team.

To sum it up in a nutshell, the Park West Gallery lawyers have made an error of gigantic proportions by attaching certain documents and deposition testimony to its motion that Park West Gallery had designated and declared as "PROTECTED" from public disclosure, and in doing so has instantly elected that the material be made a public record. BIG, BIG, GIGANTIC MISTAKE! HUGE!

Park West Gallery doesn't realize it yet, but its lawyers have opened up the barn door and the cows are out and a tornado is fast approaching. Fine Art Registry is about to come barreling through with all the information from our investigation, including discovery and deposition testimony and we will be shouting it all from the mountaintops which will be laid out in detail in future articles.

Park West Gallery and especially its lawyers should know by now that Fine Art Registry delivers on what we promise. Make no mistake about it. Fine Art Registry will take full advantage of the recent irresponsible and dim blunder by Park West Gallery lawyers, especially since Park West Gallery has lied and cheated its way through this litigation from the beginning—making a mockery out of the legal system and continuing to do so. How shameful and embarrassing it must be for Albert Scaglione (as deserved as it is) to proclaim these simpleton attorneys as his legal advocates, especially awkward in light of the last round of screw ups by Scaglione's golden boy, and lead lawyer, Bob Goldman, who Park West Gallery claims is the "most feared prosecutor" in the land. (See the last section of Litigation Update No. 5 for more on the marvel of a spectacle put on by Goldman. And now that Park West Gallery has made the deposition of Fine Art Registry CEO Theresa Franks' public in the State and Federal case, Fine Art Registry can now report on the juicier aspects of Goldman's performance when he referred to Park West Gallery's artwork in a most vulgar way.)

Formal Proof of Protected Material Being Made Public by Park West Gallery

It is the purpose of this article to publish on the web the public court record that proves that Park West Gallery has willfully and intentionally violated its own protective order. We make a formal record of it here on Fine Art Registry because we know that Park West Gallery has made a habit of removing, deleting or destroying evidence and then saying it never existed. [See the Plymouth Auctioneering section in Litigation Update No. 5]. We believe that once Park West Gallery is made aware of what its lawyers have done, they will try to take it all back. Not a chance, Park West. They can't have it both ways. Either the evidence is protected or it is not protected. Park West Gallery's lawyers have now established that evidence is NOT protected by making it public. All of this is now fair game for Fine Art Registry to report on. It is remarkable to note that it was one of Park West Gallery's junior lawyers with the firm of Young & Susser who authored and filed the motions for summary disposition. We wonder if this is because Jaye Quadrozzi, the senior lawyer at Young & Susser might just be in a tad bit of hot water with Park West Gallery herself, but we digress. We will report more on this subject in later litigation updates.

So, in the near future, Fine Art Registry will be publishing articles that focus heavily on the following:

1. The Park West Gallery Agreement for Sale of Art (Exhibit B).
   

   The fact that Park West Gallery has made this "agreement for sale" document public is truly a gift to Fine Art Registry, the plaintiffs Sharon Day and Julian Howard, who are delighted, as well as to the hundreds and hundreds of Park West Gallery victims that remain. We seriously doubt that the junior lawyer for Park West Gallery who authored and filed in spiteful haste the Sharon Day and Julian Howard Motion for Summary Disposition has a clue as to the woeful significance of the disservice he has done his client, Park West Gallery. He is also surely unaware of the enormous advantage he has given Fine Art Registry in publicly filing the documents he has with the court and it is doubtful that any of the other lawyers for Park West Gallery know the severe implications of what has been done. This "agreement for sale" document will be the focus of a full length article that will spell out the facts as Fine Art Registry knows them based on solid investigative research. Needless to state, this article alone will reveal many of the truths that Park West Gallery would just as soon prevent the general public and especially the nationwide class action lawyers from ever knowing.

2. Deposition Transcript of Sharon Day (Exhibit I).
   

   What can we say, except thanks, Park West Gallery! The deposition transcript of Sharon Day was to remain under strict protective order. Fine Art Registry will be sure to highlight the best of Sharon Day's testimony in future reports and litigation updates.

3. Deposition of Frank Hunter (Exhibit K).
   

   Same for this jewel - our sincere thanks, Park West Gallery. We will now be able to report on a whole host of facts we were not at liberty to report on before this reckless but welcome public disclosure by Park West Gallery's lawyers.

4. Deposition of Nicolas Descharnes (Exhibit L).
   

   The disclosure of the deposition of the world expert in Dali, Nicolas Descharnes is simply the icing on the cake. (See Open Letter on Expertise of Dali Works and The Descharnes' Undying Commitment to Salvador Dali.) We will soon reveal the bad, the ugly and the really ugly concerning Park West Gallery and what our experts Nicolas Descharnes and Frank Hunter have to say about the Park West Gallery Dalí art inventory.

5. Email from Gary Metzner to Sharon Day (Exhibit J).
   

   Fine Art Registry is amazed that Park West Gallery used this document in support of its motion. We will comment in detail about this email which is in itself damning for Park West Gallery. Further, as an added note, Park West Gallery's lawyers incorrectly refer to Mr. Metzner as Mr. Metzger throughout the motion.

We will also report on the following in detail:

6. Affidavit of Albert Scaglione (Exhibit A).
   

   We will shoot a few hundred holes in this whopper of a tale by Albert Scaglione, which will of course be supported by the very evidence that Albert Scaglione didn't really want the public and our readers to see, but has now generously been made public by his own lawyers. Isn't this rich?

7. Attestation of Daniel David (Exhibit B).
   

   This little pearl is not protected and is part of the Sharon Day and Julian Howard case study. However, in light of the recent public disclosure of No. 1, above (the Park West Gallery art sale agreement), this document suddenly deserves a spotlight of its own and will be the subject of an in depth article on Les Heures Claires and Daniel David (who just happens to be one of Park West Gallery's paid experts and from whom the artwork in No. 1 above was sourced - all so incestuous, isn't it?). If this all sounds confusing right now, don't worry, we'll make it all crystal clear for our readers in the near future.

8. Expert Report of Bernard Ewell.
   

   This document is also not subject to the Park West Gallery protective order, but again in light of No. 1 above and the Park West Gallery disclosure of the deposition transcripts of Frank Hunter, Nicolas Descharnes, Sharon Day, and Theresa Franks, the Ewell report begs an in depth article of its own, so we'll dissect the Ewell so-called "expert report" supported by the evidence and expert testimony, all courtesy of the Park West Gallery lawyers.

9. The Infamous Park West Gallery Provenance.
   

   Perhaps the most enlightening article we will write in the future will be based on the Park West Gallery infamous Dalí provenance that allegedly supports the authenticity of the Dali print inventory the gallery sells, some of which it has sold to Sharon Day and Julian Howard to the tune of nearly a half million dollars - artwork which has been declared as containing forged signatures among other defects.

   The fact that Park West Gallery has taken the wraps off deposition testimony of all sorts of witnesses will make this an enlightening and enjoyable article to write, all supported by the evidence which Park West Gallery lawyers have made public, of course. We are going to enjoy setting forth the not so "extensive steps" that Park West Gallery states they took "to ensure the authenticity of its Salvador Dali works and signatures before it [Park West] purchased them." We are also anxious to show that the Dalí works did not exactly come from "the highest-quality sources," as claimed by Park West in its motion. There is ample documentary evidence that Park West Gallery doesn't even know where some of the Dalí prints they have sold to unsuspecting cruise passengers came from.

Wild Machinations, Outright Lies and Half Truths Contained in the Park West Gallery Motion for Summary Disposition

The Park West Gallery Motion for Summary Disposition is filled with despicable lies, wild claims, and half truths which are totally and completely unsupported by any credible evidence. The omission of many of the facts is also telling: like the fact that the original Les Heures Claires that originally published the Divine Comedy in the 1960s went bankrupt many years ago and is no longer in business and has absolutely nothing to do with the Day Howard set, yet Park West deceives the court and states otherwise. The stated fact that Park West Gallery used "independent" experts is also a lie. We know this is not the case and we have reported on this in detail in other articles we have published on Fine Art Registry. All of the Park West Gallery experts are slaves to their master - all of them (Bernard Ewell, Daniel David and Eduard Fornes) have made sweetheart deals with Park West.

We take issue with the summary disposition motion and we are most anxious to highlight the lies and omissions contained therein and we will do so with solid, credible evidence that cannot be refuted and we will do so using the evidence that Park West Gallery has now made public. They won't be able to get away with promoting these lies any longer for the truth is about to prevail. And now that Fine Art Registry has carte blanche to publish once "protected" material, we will finally be free once and for all to swing open the window of truth for all to see.

If you want to be notified of our future articles and litigation updates, be sure to subscribe to our RSS feeds here. Updates and new articles published on Fine Art Registry will be emailed directly to your inbox so you won't miss any of the action. There is much, much more to come in the near future.

Sign-up to Receive our Latest
News & Updates:

— by Fine Art Registry®  |  December 30, 2009

Discuss on FAR® Forum   |   Print   |  

   

back to top