Ginacue resolution page 1

[thepavlos]

Off topic but not.
Here in Massachusetts, if you report a motorcycle stolen the title is clouded in perpetuity until cleared. A guy bought a ~49 Harley Davidson Knucklehead spent a ton of money to restore it and then went to register it. The RMV was able to contact the original owner and he did not have to pay a dime to get it back.

This of course is only possible because with a title you have a chain of ownership; with cues this obviously becomes very difficult unless we started making "titles" for cues. I personally agree that Mark is owed his actual investment having not known it was stolen.
Just my 2 xents worth
Paul

 

[Bruce S. de Lis]

The preliminary court hearing in PA to determine a resolution or move forward with a trial date, regarding this cue took place on Thursday June 23, 2005. At that hearing, the court recognized that I had bought the cue in good faith (with no knowledge of its purported stolen status), acknowledged my receipt and cancelled check proving my payment for the cue and further acknowledged the additional money I had invested to make the cue functional and increase its value. In the presence of the judge, investigating police officer, myself and my lawyer a compromise was recommended and agreed to by Scott Lee and myself. I relinquish the cue to him and he compensates me the dollar amount determined by the court. The second part of the agreement was not to discuss the specific terms of the settlement of this case with anyone, and/or on the internet, except to say “it has been resolved.”

I have only read on side of the story, and that is Mark’s. But if a Judge made a Ruling where both parties agreed to what is written below.

”The second part of the agreement was not to discuss the specific terms of the settlement of this case with anyone, and/or on the internet, except to say “

Than the terms of that agreement should have been honored by both parties.

I do not know Mark, but a VERY GOOD FRIEND has had dealings with him. He said he was Treated FAIRLY BY Mark on a Consignment Sale of a Cue.

 

[bruin70]

Bruin and Icon,
Obviously its easier and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that doesn't make it right. Through personal experience I will tell you that many cue dealers don't care if its stolen ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I hope you are not saying its okay for us to buy old cues without a history; but if they turn out to be stolen then its okay for us to demand such a history from a guy whose name was engraved on the cue when we bought it.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I've had this discussion with a cue dealer acquaintance on several occasions. To me his arguments are self-serving and self-ish,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, If you collect (art, stamps, coins, cues) things; welcome to the wonderful world of black market and stolen merchandise. I know it goes on; I know a lot of "nice guys" collect and sell cues;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

i couldn't agree with you more. it is a self serving issue. but it's also an ignorance issue. if cue dealers knew what to look for, they wouldn't get suckered into the whole thing. i'm not saying they are all purposefully guilty, just not knowledgeable enough to not get swindled.

but somewhere along the line, someone or some few, knowingly or "half willingly" took part in a transaction that would eventually "authenticate" a cue of questionable origin.

i agree with fred though.....i couldn't understand the point of the public airing of this incident. i don't think mark's rep got burned,,,,,not in the small world of cue/pool. i think it was a pride thing. i knew people would take sides on an incident they really know nothing about. but fred,,,,,when the whole issue got posted, it then became public fodder.

 

[GeraldG]

Gerald, this is a great post...great points are made here. However, how about the "pot shots" taken at Mark through the CCB posts and here on AZB that may have adversely afefct Mark's business? I believe that the information here shows that Mark made good faith efforts to resolve this matter fairly without going to court (and without knowing what his rights were in the matter). It seems pretty clear to me who was the party that made matters more difficult here and then when it was all said and done, did not abide by the agreement that was made in court....

I think everyone can agree that this is a tough situation....glad it's resolved and Mark can get beyond this and continue doing what he loves.

I agree. I think the "pot shots" taken from either side of this are unnecessary and counter-productive. They ALWAYS are.

Mark was apparently attempting to make this thing right without taking too much of a loss. No one can blame him for that, but in a case like this it may not be possible. Scott wants his cue back and no one can blame him for that...he may have gotten a little vocal about it, maybe that's understandable.

I think it's absolutely uncalled-for for people who were not even involved in this situation to be taking pot-shots at either side. They apparently have a resolution to the problem...Scott will get his cue back and Mark will recoup some of his money...it's time now to just let them handle it and hope neither party's reputation was hurt too badly. It doesn't sound to me like either one had ill intentions.

 

[bruin70]

I agree. I think the "pot shots" taken from either side of this are unnecessary and counter-productive. They ALWAYS are.

.Scott will get his cue back and Mark will recoup some of his money...it's time now to just let them handle it and hope neither party's reputation was hurt too badly. It doesn't sound to me like either one had ill intentions.

i think if i was either person and it involved an expensive cue, i would've acted as each did,,,,except for airing this all out in public.

 

[GeraldG]

i think if i was either person and it involved an expensive cue, i would've acted as each did,,,,except for airing this all out in public.

Yep...me too!

 

[Snapshot9]

lets Vote ...

Shall we just Vote, and have it settled then, and they
have to live by our vote ....

at least then, the words 'purposeful meaning' can be
added to this thread...

 

[GeraldG]

Shall we just Vote, and have it settled then, and they
have to live by our vote ....

at least then, the words 'purposeful meaning' can be
added to this thread...

We could add it....I'm not sure what it means, but we could add it.

 

[pooltchr]

I personally agree that Mark is owed his actual investment having not known it was stolen.
Just my 2 xents worth
Paul

But who owes Mark? If you had a cue stolen and reported it, how would you feel if it was located, but you had to BUY it back??? Is it fair to ask the victim of a crime to pay to get his property returned?

Just looking at it from another angle.

 

[wayne]

i think if i was either person and it involved an expensive cue, i would've acted as each did,,,,except for airing this all out in public.

I certainly wouldn't have acted as each did if I was on either end of it. If it was me dealing with someone like me I would have gotten a receipt from Ernie for the cost of refurbishing and shafts and offered this to the cuemaker for the return of my long lost cue. Obviously, the cue has a much higher value than when it was stolen (about $750 then) and this way I would be in the exact same position if the damage cue had been returned to me many years ago and I had Ernie do the work for me (which was obviously necessary).

I certainly wouldn't put myself through any legal hassles where one side would benefit a lot at the expense of the other just because the legal system is unfair in many cases.

But, hey, that's just me who would like to work something out that is honest and as fair as possible to both parties.

Wayne

 

[GeraldG]

But who owes Mark? If you had a cue stolen and reported it, how would you feel if it was located, but you had to BUY it back??? Is it fair to ask the victim of a crime to pay to get his property returned?

Just looking at it from another angle.

That's exactly right. It is not right for the victim of a theft to have to buy his property back and that is not the way it usually works. Normally if you are found in possession of stolen property, you forfeit the property and all money you invested in it and the property is returned to it's rightful owner.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Just curious, we're talking about 13 years.........is there any such thing as a statute of limitations in reagrd to something like this?

 

[Williebetmore]

Just curious, we're talking about 13 years.........is there any such thing as a statute of limitations in reagrd to something like this?

Mr. W,
There is a statute of limitations on some crimes. There is no statute of limitations on doing the right thing (hopefully we don't need lawyers to tell us what that "right thing" is).

 

[bruin70]

Mr. W,
There is a statute of limitations on some crimes. There is no statute of limitations on doing the right thing (hopefully we don't need lawyers to tell us what that "right thing" is).

the right thing means two different things to these two parties. and maybe legal solutions will be the only answer. maybe an arbitrator is the answer. the thing is,,,i seems like lee wasn't satisfied with what the court said,,,started impugning mark,,,,and mark has struck back.

so,,,this whole thing WAS settled, not just to lee's satisfaction.

 

[Bruce S. de Lis]

Just curious, we're talking about 13 years.........is there any such thing as a statute of limitations in reagrd to something like this?

Easch of our 50 + the District of Columbia have DIFFERENT LAWS, and Statutes of limitations.

 

[Gabber]

back the truck up

" Hm, maybe Scott had the police come and make a report of the cue's presence so it wouldn't "disappear"?

Hm...

Barbara
__________________"


The cue was in a 'glass case', obviously an item of interest and value. How many people do you think saw that cue before SL did?
Plus the fact that the cue was in the BD!!!!

David Blaine couldnt make that cue disappear!

Gabber

 

[SpiderWeb]

Send that cue back to the maker and get a plain Jane butt capp and sell it in a far away land before it contimates the rest of your collection!!!!!!!!!!

 

[merylane]

i think mark made 2 mistakes,

1. talking to sue.

2. not having ernie put the name of who the cue was originly made for?

what the f*%& could he have been thinking?

e. c. kelly yeeeeeee haaaaaaw thank you for that info ernie.

boy i hope scott sends the cue to ernie and has the original name put back on.

 

[zeeder]

i think mark made 2 mistakes,

1. talking to sue.

2. not having ernie put the name of who the cue was originly made for?

what the f*%& could he have been thinking?

e. c. kelly yeeeeeee haaaaaaw thank you for that info ernie.

boy i hope scott sends the cue to ernie and has the original name put back on.

My understanding is that Ernie offered to take it off but Mark left it on.

 

[onepocketchump]

anybody that buys a cue that is over twenty years old and doesnt know the entire chain of ownership is promoting theft and black market economics

i sure dont agree with that!

Neither do I, but the point is also not without merit. If it is a collectible cue then the buyer damn sure knows what he thinks he is buying. I think a simple affidavit with the correct name, address, copy of license, and a thumbprint of the seller ought to weed out the dishonest ones and offer a small modicum of protection to the buyer.

I have done everything but the thumbprint and have never had a problem with any of the cues I have bought and sold. Granted, my activity in this area, especially in the high-end part, is pretty small in comparison to the cue dealers.

You can't buy a five thousand dollar car without the title so why should you be able to purchase a cue without knowing the clear ownership? In fact, if we were required to transact with titles of ownership then it would cut down on theft and fencing, both willfull and ignorant. Something so simple as an internet database of ownership - like carfax.

There is also a company that sells registerable chips that can be embedded in cues. Maybe high-end cuemakers ought to offer those.

John