Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by 340swinger

So, let me get this straight, if your guitar gets stolen, sold, resold a couple times, and ends up at a music store. I walk in, pick it up and buy it, even though it was stolen from you, it now is legally mine? I guess so since I was unaware it was stolen and bought it legally? WTF?

YES! Depending on where you are.
Laws are not universally the same.
Also, if at any time an insurance company has paid out on an instrument THEY might be the rightful owners.
Right and Wrong morally is one thing, but legally it is not so simple (especially in this case where we are talking about a long time having passed and different continents)

[diceman]

The law doesn't have to be universally the same, because it happened here in the good old USA!

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by diceman

The law doesn't have to be universally the same, because it happened here in the good old USA!

Yes, but Moore doesn't have to abide by US court decisions as he is in Europe.
If he wants to tour the States again, it might lead to problems.
As an example that of how the law works.
A friend of my dads had a (desirable) car stolen. The thieves sold it in Italy. The Law in Italy stated the car was from the moment it was sold in Italy, the new owners. End of story.

[diceman]

I don't know anything about international long arm jurisdiction - but US law governs this particular suit. Whether or not they can touch him / enforce a judgment outside of the USA is a different matter.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by diceman

I don't know anything about international long arm jurisdiction - but US law governs this particular suit. Whether or not they can touch him / enforce a judgment outside of the USA is a different matter.

Well exactly. It doesn't actually matter in a practical sense who wins a case if that case can't be enforced.

People seem to take sides without appreciating that it doesn't matter what ANYONE thinks. It only matters about the practical end result of such a case.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Yes, but Moore doesn't have to abide by US court decisions as he is in Europe.
If he wants to tour the States again, it might lead to problems.
As an example that of how the law works.
A friend of my dads had a (desirable) car stolen. The thieves sold it in Italy. The Law in Italy stated the car was from the moment it was sold in Italy, the new owners. End of story.

If Montrose wins and Moore won't give the guitar back, Montrose can sue Moore & have his US assets frozen / turned over to Montrose (if Moore has any assets in the US). It would not be good for Moore try to keep the guitar if Montrose wins.

[dlmorley]

Yes, there are plenty of if's and when's and but's and such things, but all I have been saying about the whole thing is that it won't be a simple matter of a court deciding "yep, that looks like it's the same guitar" and Gary handing it over..

[diceman]

There is really no doubt that it is the same guitar, though.

[JimmyAce2006]

I think the only question here is whether there is some statute of limitations involved and whether the court will be lenient in that respect. Knowing that it is indeed the same guitar, I think Montrose will win. But I think it will be diffult for him to retrieve the guitar. However, in addition to the guitar, there is the question of damages. I don't really see Montrose getting anything for that. But if there is any money involved in the judgement or any subsequent fines against GM for not handing over the guitar, Montrose could ask the court to garnish GM's earnings from the USA.

[billy]

What about appeals on whatever decision is made, is that a possibility. If so this case could go on for years.

[rick13]

Damages? Some people just don't know when to quit. If I were the judge, I would question the motives of the case with this strategy. If you think it's your guitar, file your case and prove it in court. Don't go down the damages and victimized path. The feigned moral indignation in this thread is just classic.
Rick

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by rick13

Damages? Some people just don't know when to quit. If I were the judge, I would question the motives of the case with this strategy. If you think it's your guitar, file your case and prove it in court. Don't go down the damages and victimized path. The feigned moral indignation in this thread is just classic.
Rick

The damages have to do with the fact that Moore has changed the guitar and thus lowered the perceived value. When Montrose had the guitar, it was pristine. Moore has put a lot of wear on it and take the pup covers off, and who knows what other kind of mods. I believe the damages have to do with the diminished value of the guitar. I don't think he will get anything for that though. It is a famous guitar that would probably be worth just as much as it is now (after the lawsuit is settled & gutiar is in possession of the person whom the court says should have it); if anything else b/c it is celebrity owned.

[billy]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

The damages have to do with the fact that Moore has changed the guitar and thus lowered the perceived value. When Montrose had the guitar, it was pristine. Moore has put a lot of wear on it and take the pup covers off, and who knows what other kind of mods. I believe the damages have to do with the diminished value of the guitar. I don't think he will get anything for that though. It is a famous guitar that would probably be worth just as much as it is now (after the lawsuit is settled & gutiar is in possession of the person whom the court says should have it); if anything else b/c it is celebrity owned.

Its probally worth more now.

Also is there a clear enough picture to see that the guitar was pristine when RM owned it, that black and white photo is good enoungh to show that its the same guitar but no where near good enough to show if there is any checking, dings or any other wear and tear on the guitar.... and the guitar ain't that pristine because you can quite clearly see that there is fading of the burst colour so it doesn't look like it did when it left the factory... which would suggest it isn't in pristine condition.

[zplapplap]

Ha. There are many practical and strategic reasons why the tort claims asking for monetary damages are involved. I only have time to go into the most basic reason.

What if Montrose is able to sufficiently prove the guitar is his and GM tell Montrose, and the California civil courts to take a hike? What happens then? Sue for conversion, trespass to chattels etc.? No. Montrose gets one shot. He had to plead it the first time around.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by billy

Its probally worth more now.

Also is there a clear enough picture to see that the guitar was pristine when RM owned it, that black and white photo is good enoungh to show that its the same guitar but no where near good enough to show if there is any checking, dings or any other wear and tear on the guitar.... and the guitar ain't that pristine because you can quite clearly see that there is fading of the burst colour so it doesn't look like it did when it left the factory... which would suggest it isn't in pristine condition.

The suit says he has pics that were taken by a pro. There are decent pics of the guitar in color in this thread, but who knows who owned it. Those pics show the pup covers & guard on the guitar, unlike the way it is now in GM's possession.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by zplapplap

What if Montrose is able to sufficiently prove the guitar is his and GM tell Montrose, and the California civil courts to take a hike? What happens then? Sue for conversion, trespass to chattels etc.? No. Montrose gets one shot. He had to plead it the first time around.

Makes sense. He's covering all the possibilities. What is this that someone on this thread says Montrose has brain cancer? I could not find anything about that on the web. is it true?

[stinger]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Makes sense. He's covering all the possibilities. What is this that someone on this thread says Montrose has brain cancer? I could not find anything about that on the web. is it true?

I have heard this a few times but never found out if it is true.

[billy]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

The suit says he has pics that were taken by a pro.

Will these pics ever be made public?? also when does this whole mess go to court??

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by Horse

+1 and +1000000000000!!!!!

Moore is he is a grumpy old hack who disses guys like Joe Bonamassa in the press whilst pretending to be a mate..... and he hasnt learnt a thing about tone in 30 years...... his was great and got worse and worse.... doesnt deserve the guitar, just a BFG sig!!!!!

(tongue firmly in cheek....)

Hey thanks Horse!!!

I just listened to GM's song Still Got the Blues... honestly, I didn't hear anything special. Nothing technically superior, and sound you could probably get from a good botique guitar with good humbuckers. Not only that but he got sued for plagurizing this song and LOST?

What's the big deal with this guy? Can someone recommend something please? I will definitely give it a chance...

fletch

[zplapplap]

Originally Posted by diceman

The Bar exam is next week for you, right?

14 summer credits? That unreal.

You're on the fast track.

My bar exam begins on Tuesday the 28th. I am in great shape for the MBE...surpassing all of the BarBri targets (with the exception of real property, but that's coming around). My source of fear at this point is that I've never had to memorize this amount of information for closed book essays. Studying for this has been a miserable experience. I like the law enough. It's the study schedule that's a back breaker.

Please wish me well. America clearly needs one more lawyer.

[diceman]

Originally Posted by zplapplap

14 summer credits? That unreal.

You're on the fast track.

My bar exam begins on Tuesday the 28th. I am in great shape for the MBE...surpassing all of the BarBri targets (with the exception of real property, but that's coming around). My source of fear at this point is that I've never had to memorize this amount of information for closed book essays. Studying for this has been a miserable experience. I like the law enough. It's the study schedule that's a back breaker.

Please wish me well. America clearly needs one more lawyer.

A lot of guys in our library studying for it lately. I ask all of them - "is the bar prep as bad as I'm fearing it will be?" Answer is always "no - much much worse!"

Good luck brother - sounds like you're on track. One more week, then you can relax!

[River]

Originally Posted by zplapplap

<snip>Please wish me well. America clearly needs one more lawyer.

Consider yourself wished well (you too, Dice, as events warrant).

What the USA needs is as many good and honest lawyers as it can get. I think you probably understand how I define "honest", so I say the same thing about doctors.

[benjammin420]

Originally Posted by billy

Will these pics ever be made public?? also when does this whole mess go to court??

i havent seen or heard anything new about this in a while, anyone else?

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by billy

Will these pics ever be made public?? also when does this whole mess go to court??

don't know on either question

[diceman]

Thanks River. I'm 1/2 way done...

[tonebone]

weedwacker


I'm guessing this is a way to change online poll results.

Someone's using this? Go to hell punks. Eat me.



Anytime.

[diceman]

What the fuck are you talking about?

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel's tech

Ronnie may have shot himself in the foot with this interview.


This article originally appeared in VG's Jan. '95 issue.



Question:...I recall seeing the band on the old "In Concert" series, and there was a song where you and Hartman switched instruments in the middle of a song; I think it was called "Let's Get It On".

Ronnie:...That was the song; you've got a good memory! I'd go play bass while Hartman would play with his teeth; that kind of schtick. (laughs) But there's a sad story about that part of the performance. We were playing in Dudley, Massachusetts one night; I was using a '58 Les Paul Sunburst that I'd gotten from J. Geils. When the time to "switch" came, I put it on a stand like I'd always do; I went over and played bass while Dan played a white Strat. When I came back over to get my Les Paul, it was gone; there was just a strap there. That was in the days of no security, and I never did get that guitar back.

How do you feel about collecting guitars?

After that '58 Les Paul got stolen, I got real uptight about taking valuable instruments on the road. I'm known as a player, not a collector, and I look at instruments from the viewpoint that they should be played;



On Two occasions Ronnie say's it was a 58, Gary can thank me later if this helps him keep the guitar.

hmmmmm, actually I think this bolsters his claim to not being a collector. He obviously has the serial # to his stolen guitar, and has used the serial # to search for the guitar since it was stolen. Don't know why he said 58 in answer to the interviewer, guess he's a player, not a collector.

It really doesn't look good for Montrose in his quest to get his guitar back. Just a hunch.

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by diceman

What the fuck are you talking about?

There's several posts on this thread about "weedwacker" and vote results.

Hopefully I'm wrong about my assumption. (I always get bit when I start assuming...)

[River]

Originally Posted by tonebone

There's several posts on this thread about "weedwacker" and vote results.

Hopefully I'm wrong about my assumption. (I always get bit when I start assuming...)

I started the weed-whacker thing based on Fletch's reference to loaning lawnmowers. I've got a fancy, expensive Honda lawn trimmer my neighbors are always wanting to borrow. Lawnmowers and cheap-ass trimmers are a dime a dozen. My Honda's something special, and I won't let anyone borrow it, especially if they voted for Moore!

That's all Fletch and I are referring to. Can't speak for anyone else.