Truth to Power #28: Park West Gallery Rembrandt Plates

[FineArtRegistry]

Truth to Power #28 Part 1 through 3


Post Trial Update - Park West Gallery Litigation

Part 1 - Question: Does PWG Own Rembrandt Plates? Answer: NO! Result: Lies and Deception!
Teri addresses some areas from the Michigan jury trial that she was forbidden to mention in court. There was a document produced by Park West Gallery which contained questions from the shipboard auctioneers addressed to PWG, and answers presumably drafted by Morris Shapiro whose name was on the document, however he claimed he knew nothing of it. This was a BIG MISTAKE because the answers made by Park West and sent to the auctioneers, were damning! Especially with respect to the Rembrandt plates, the Albaretto's and questions referencing them. Teri talks about the extensive research that she has conducted to try to portray their jumbled and confusing provenance and produces the Flow Chart to help sort it out. It conveys the truth of the old saying; Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

Part 2 - Rembrandt Plates - "Kind of Like Having The US Mint Plates!"
Teri is back with a little more information on Morris Shapiro and Bill Smith in regard to the Rembrandt plates. Park West Gallery does not want you to know what Bill Smith knows, in fact Fine Art Registry tried relentlessly to take his deposition, but he was carefully hidden away and with very good reason. He is toxic when it comes to behind the scenes dealings. Teri reports on a lengthy conversation that she had with John McCluran who sold the Rembrandt plates to Park West, revealing some sizzling facts that will have Park West Gallery ducking for cover.

Part 3 - Park West Gallery - "Sweeping The Rembrandt Plates Under The Rug"
Finishing up with the Rembrandt deal and all of the misrepresentations and lies surrounding Park West and their attempt to sweep the whole mess under the rug, Teri continues her conversation with the man that sold the Rembrandt plates to PWG. They are PRINTING MONEY! FAR® broke the story last year in an article on the website after uncovering irrefutable documentation that Park West Gallery did indeed buy the Rembrandt plates and then tried to cover up the purchase. They lied to their auctioneers telling them that they did NOT OWN THE PLATES! Therefore they were duping their own as well as the buying public! Morris Shapiro took the hot seat as a rebuttal witness at trial to attempt to clean up the mess of the damning information that inadvertently came out in PWG testimony and failed miserably.

Discuss this Article Here: We look forward to your Comments!
_________________
Fine Art Registry
Visit Fine Art Registry.com!
The World's 1st Online Permanent Registry and Marketplace for Fine Art and Collectibles!

[GroveCanada]

In part 2 of 3, Rembrandt plates, Teri mentions the 2500 limit on printing from those plates...I had to watch again to hear the "in the U.S." stipulation to understand how the justification was given for the loophole...The loophole being some sort of cockamamie premise that by moving countries, the stipulation could be lifted...

As an artist, when making stipulations to a collector or client about what they can or cannot do with a work of art, there is a legal assumption that the person buying the work will be subject to the laws of the country where the art resides...

The Rembrandt plates were living in the Carolinas, stored in a museum, & later sold, when the owner died...The museum was just holding them to protect them but did not own them...

When Park West gallery bought the plates, they were on U.S. soil & had been for 30 years already...

Park West was also operating on U.S. soil...

As such, any agreements were subject & binding to U.S. laws...

Any contract limiting printing from the plates to 2500 prints, is considered absolute...

Meaning, if the plates were sold on U.S. soil, that is not the salient point of the contract...

The salient point of the contract is that 2500 prints were what was the maximum amount of prints allowed to be printed from those plates...

The fact that the term "in the U.S." occurred in the contract, does not invalidate the quantities stipulated...

It merely denotes where the contract occurred...

If the person or entities selling the plates was implying that more prints could be made off of those plates, by moving the plates to a different country, then the contract would have stipulated such limits or permits...

Something to the order of ' if European prints are made you can make another 2500' if 'Asian prints are made you can make another 2500' if 'Canadian prints are made you can make another 2500'...and so on...

The absence of those stipulations does Not imply a free for all on behalf of the new owner of the plates...

It merely asserts that the TOTAL limit on printings is 2500 for the price that has been paid at point of sale...

This is like any copyright agreement with an artist- you can make this many prints for this price...

If the new owners of the plates wanted to make more than 2500 prints from those plates they would have to get permissions & pay more money to the previous owners for that right...Not to mention droit de suite 3% back to the Rembrandt estate to keep his heirs in university...

No...As an artist, NO...Printing more than 2500 prints from those plates is NOT legal, no matter what country they printed them in...

It is still theft from Rembrandt...& this precedent shall NOT be accepted by the artistic community internationally...

If the seller says 2500 prints, then 2500 it is...Not more. I don't care if they are in Chinese...no...

Unless they get permissions & pay further monies, no...

The contract, by stating "in the U.S." does NOT imply that more can be made elsewhere. It merely is stating the location of the agreement...

Other agreements for other locations would have had to be negotiated & nailed down before further printing could have been allowed...

An absence of paperwork does not constitute license...In fact, quite the opposite...


More: http://books.google.ca/books?id=Mub3-VcRLecC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=breach+of+contract+by+leaving+the+country&source=bl&ots=xlY6YT-bW9&sig=C9tZSPLp6gmW4gWMrPJynQN2UZo&hl=en&ei=oy4ETMayMoT78Abi97DRDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=breach%20of%20contract%20by%20leaving%20the%20country&f=false

The above url, if you cannot see the reference, refers to EXPORT LICENCES in particular...

An EXPORT LICENCE is required for art objects of value to a country, that someone wants to export to another country.

In order for Park West gallery to move those Rembrandt plates from North Carolina, or Michigan or Minnesota, to Europe or Asia or wherever, to print from them, AN EXPORT LICENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE OBTAINED...

This is not to invalidate my earlier statement that any printing above the maximum allowed of 2500 would be considered a BREACH OF CONTRACT by the seller, & as such actionable & sueable by the seller of those plates to PWG.

But to say, that even if they tried to move the plates out of the States an export licence(s) would have to have been obtained.

That said, if an export licence was NOT obtained, PWG is in violation of American law, if those plates were ever moved off of American soil...

[peares]

I wouldn't bet on it.