Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by yeti

I think the original owner whose home was burglarized while GM and RM where still shitting in their diapers should get it back
Just kidding, but has anyone, including Ronnie considered the possibility that it had already been stolen once or twice before Ronnie bought it?
Oh, and while we're at it... GM and RM should engage in a guitar duel to the deaf to determine if either one of them is really worthy of a Burst

Not likely. There is no report of it having been stolen before. Nobody has come forward with any such claim or any proof of such claim. Not all used guitars are stolen. LOL

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by AXE

Ronnie. It's his...

As far as a duel, that'd be tough. Ronnie still has his chops but his bout with brain cancer has taken some of the fire out of his playing. Which is understandable...

Brain cancer? I never heard that. Please explain.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by RCCola

This is ridiculous. We have very little information about this case. Unless you're directly involved with either party, you don't know squat and are just stating an uninformed opinion. How is that helpful?

If the applicable statute of limitations has expired, then the guitar would legally belong to Gary Moore. If you want to make up a word and call that 'unstolen', then it's possible for the guitar to be 'unstolen'.

There are a lot of complications with different jurisdictions involved. I know that members of KISS got a bunch of their stuff back that had been stolen years before & was being sold by someone. It is very possible that Ronnie will get the guitar back.

[bfcg]

Gary gets the emotional vote. I vote for the owner, Montrose.
If it was previously stolen (pre-Ronnie), then let the owner come forward.
In the meantime, it is Ronnie's guitar in my mind.
Gary is a punk a$$ mofo if he knows he has a stolen guitar and refuses to give it back.

[bfcg]

Nowadays if you own something so valuable and so portable you need to have a chip in it
Lowjack that bitch. Gear goes underground and will stay there forever with these collectors. There is probably a market specifically for stolen gear.
I wonder how much stuff is stashed in Abu Dhabi and places like that.

[Liam]

If there was a button to vote for:

Leave it in the hands of the legal system - they're probably getting paid enough, and our opinion on the case means very little.

Then I'd be able to vote. Too complex to know who ought to end up with it.

I had a guitar stolen many years ago, but ended up buying it back from a shop about a year later (still got it).

Complicated story, but in short the insurance had paid out, and I didn't want the guy that had sold it to the shop to get done for receiving stolen property, as he was unaware that it was nicked until the shop owner recognised it as my guitar. He only took it in for a setup, but as soon as he was told it was probably mine he left it with the shop and asked them to contact me.

The shop owner was actually an ex-policeman, and helped me work out how to do the least damage to the least people. I also found out who had stolen the guitar, and was not willing to take action against them. (Some people are genuinely scary...)

It's never simple.

Liam

[yeti]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Not likely. There is no report of it having been stolen before. Nobody has come forward with any such claim or any proof of such claim. Not all used guitars are stolen. LOL

That's fine but the real question is: If Ronnie demands it back, including damages, would he then return it to a previous rightful owner ( If there was one) as well? It's easier to ask for stuff back than to give it back.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by yeti

That's fine but the real question is: If Ronnie demands it back, including damages, would he then return it to a previous rightful owner ( If there was one) as well? It's easier to ask for stuff back than to give it back.

If it was stolen from someone else before Ronnie bought it, then of course that person deserves to have it. In that case Ronnie is no different than Gary. But I don't see what your point is with this sort of question. There are no claims that it was ever stolen before Ronnie bought it. Again, not all used guitars are stolen and back in the day when he bought it, the guitar was not worth a whole lot. Ronnie could have had any of his guitars there on the stage next to the audience; whatever guitar he put there was the one that would get taken.

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by Liam

If there was a button to vote for:

Leave it in the hands of the legal system - they're probably getting paid enough, and our opinion on the case means very little.

Then I'd be able to vote. Too complex to know who ought to end up with it.

I had a guitar stolen many years ago, but ended up buying it back from a shop about a year later (still got it).

Complicated story, but in short the insurance had paid out, and I didn't want the guy that had sold it to the shop to get done for receiving stolen property, as he was unaware that it was nicked until the shop owner recognised it as my guitar. He only took it in for a setup, but as soon as he was told it was probably mine he left it with the shop and asked them to contact me.

The shop owner was actually an ex-policeman, and helped me work out how to do the least damage to the least people. I also found out who had stolen the guitar, and was not willing to take action against them. (Some people are genuinely scary...)

It's never simple.

Liam

...dude...


All you young guys? Please read Liams post. This "is" maturity.

Yes, some fights aren't worth fighting, eg, "scary people."

btw, they are out there. Watch your back. Never sit in a marginal bar or club with your back to the front door, don't sit where you can't see the entire club, or at least a lot of it. Keep your eye on your gear, no matter how pretty the birds are (or guys, you girl guitar slingers).

[yeti]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

If it was stolen from someone else before Ronnie bought it, then of course that person deserves to have it. In that case Ronnie is no different than Gary. But I don't see what your point is with this sort of question. There are no claims that it was ever stolen before Ronnie bought it. Again, not all used guitars are stolen and back in the day when he bought it, the guitar was not worth a whole lot. Ronnie could have had any of his guitars there on the stage next to the audience; whatever guitar he put there was the one that would get taken.

Hey, I'm not really trying to make any point. I agree that the whole discussion is pointless, but someone started this poll, so FWIW, I think that Ronnie should ask himself the question " what if the tables where turned and his beloved Burst was stolen goods?" would he return it? If he can't answer "Yes, of course I would" with a straight face then he has no business pestering Gary Moore in this matter, just my opinion.
Peace
Werner

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by yeti

Hey, I'm not really trying to make any point. I agree that the whole discussion is pointless, but someone started this poll, so FWIW, I think that Ronnie should ask himself the question " what if the tables where turned and his beloved Burst was stolen goods?" would he return it? If he can't answer "Yes, of course I would" with a straight face then he has no business pestering Gary Moore in this matter, just my opinion.
Peace
Werner

Seems like a question of character to me. And to me it is a no brainer. It would suck (giving it up). But that is the way it is. If it was me with the guitar, and I really did not want to give it up, i would see if Ronnie would take some cash. And if not, I would give it up........or maybe let the courts force me to! haha

[billy]

If Moore did offer a cash, would it be based on todays market value, the value of the guitar when Montrose had it, the value ofg the guitar when Moore bought it or somewhere in the middle?? i don't think anyone knew in the 70's that burst would reach the value they are today, which way would the courts see it??

Also if Moore uses the guitar alot and has recorded with it couldn't he argue that it's improtant for his career/work... For example: in the UK i know of quite a few cases where drivers should get banned out right for whatever reason but because there job/career requires a driveing liecence they haven't been banned, kept the liecenced and been punished in some other way...

[River]

There are statutes of limitation on the crimes of theft and of receiving stolen property.

Are there statutes of limitation on stolen property being returned to the rightful owner? I dunno, but I doubt it.

I also dunno if the identity of the property has been properly established. But, if it has, I stand by my vote.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by billy

Also if Moore uses the guitar alot and has recorded with it couldn't he argue that it's improtant for his career/work... For example: in the UK i know of quite a few cases where drivers should get banned out right for whatever reason but because there job/career requires a driveing liecence they haven't been banned, kept the liecenced and been punished in some other way...

Nice try, but you are comparing getting outright banned from driving ANY car versus having ONE guitar taken away. He can get another one. Besides, I think the jurisdiction in the case is in the USA since it was stolen here.

[JimmyAce2006]

Maybe they should cut the guitar in half, right down the middle, and each guy gets half.

[zplapplap]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Maybe they should cut the guitar in half, right down the middle, and each guy gets half.

This would be one reason why an equitable remedy for this kind of dispute is impractical.

[Shai`tan]

After this long? Gary Moore all the way. Remunerate Montrose somehow, but keep the axe. As a musician, after this long it being used in Moores carreer, Montrose should know better than to ask for it back. At the most, Moore could get Montrose a `59 replacement axe..... and keep the 1 he has been using all these years.

[Fletch]

Legally the guitar belongs to Montrose. End of story. If for any reason it doesn't fold out that way it is because of a legal technicality, ie. jurisdiction, statute of limitations, inability to serve papers, etc.

The notion here that a person has any remote bit of entitlement to stolen property because they have had it for a certain amount of time, regardless of how aquired, is utterly silly and completely ludacris... It would be a shit-assed world if that were the case, think about it.

I'm just glad some of the people here aren't my neighbors. (Hey fletch, can I borrow your lawnmower? )

fletch

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by Shai`tan

After this long? Gary Moore all the way. Remunerate Montrose somehow, but keep the axe. As a musician, after this long it being used in Moores carreer, Montrose should know better than to ask for it back. At the most, Moore could get Montrose a `59 replacement axe..... and keep the 1 he has been using all these years.

In that case, it is the same thing as making Ronnie whole; which means basically that Ronnie got it back & sold it to Gary.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by Fletch

Legally the guitar belongs to Montrose. End of story. If for any reason it doesn't fold out that way it is because of a legal technicality, ie. jurisdiction, statute of limitations, inability to serve papers, etc.

The notion here that a person has any remote bit of entitlement to stolen property because they have had it for a certain amount of time, regardless of how aquired, is utterly silly and completely ludacris... It would be a shit-assed world if that were the case, think about it.

I'm just glad some of the people here aren't my neighbors. (Hey fletch, can I borrow your lawnmower? )

fletch

+1

[b-squared]

Gary. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Suck it up, Ronny.

[if6was9]

I voted for Montrose, because I have had a Fender Dual Showman amp stolen from me about 24 years ago and if I found someone with it I would want it back. This is base on the assumption that what Montrose is saying about the guitar being the one stolen from him is true.

[diceman]

I'll bet Gary wishes that he never would have let it be photographed for B.O.T.B.!!!

(Hey BB - got a few guitars I could hang on to for a few years? I'll give them back - I swear! )

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by b-squared

Gary. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Suck it up, Ronny.

this is something little kids say, but I don't think there is any law, stature, or legal precedent that says this, in any modern legal system in any civilized country in the world.

I think the folks that feel that Gary should keep it have never had anything stolen from them. That sinking feeling in your stomache as you realize that your car/guitar/motorcycle/etc. is gone just plain SUCKS.

My brother had a brand new dirt bike stolen out of a barn, only five weeks old. He was young and didn't make a lot of money at the time, but had to keep right on making the payments all the way until it was paid off. I remember how upset he was, a brand new Kawi KX125, locked to a wall in an enclosed barn. He spent weeks in gravel pits around the area looking for it. About 18 years later he went to a police auction, completely on a whim and guess what he found... he actually remembered the serial number! He bid to win, at the window to pay he said guess what, I already own it and I will produce the police report tommorrow that says exactly that. He was convincing because they GAVE it to him on the spot. He couldn't believe it! Turns out the reason he never got it back through the system was the serial number on the police report was one digit off... It had apparently been sitting in the police warehouse for years. Here's the sad ending... he had it for three months before it got stolen AGAIN!!!

So no sympathy for stolen property owners from me.

fletch

[River]

Originally Posted by Fletch

Legally the guitar belongs to Montrose. End of story. If for any reason it doesn't fold out that way it is because of a legal technicality, ie. jurisdiction, statute of limitations, inability to serve papers, etc.

The notion here that a person has any remote bit of entitlement to stolen property because they have had it for a certain amount of time, regardless of how aquired, is utterly silly and completely ludacris... It would be a shit-assed world if that were the case, think about it.

I'm just glad some of the people here aren't my neighbors. (Hey fletch, can I borrow your lawnmower? )

fletch

I'm with ya all the way, Fletch. You can borrow my Honda weed-whacker any time.

Now, I'm assuming we're definitely talking about the same guitar, but with that assumption...

[zplapplap]

I didn't vote. The facts aren't in and, given my current pursuits, I am much more interested in the operation of the law as applied to whatever facts emerge than the disposition of the guitar.

It's too early to conclude that "Legally the guitar belongs to Montrose." In addition, the statute of limitations has an important function that should not be simply dismissed as a legal technicality.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that Gary Moore was anything less than a good faith purchaser. Accordingly, I feel sorry for him. Even if he ultimately wins, this ugly situation is a costly pain in the ass that he didn't bargain for.

[billy]

Originally Posted by diceman

I'll bet Gary wishes that he never would have let it be photographed for B.O.T.B.!!!

I didn't think it was in BOTB.....

[billy]

Originally Posted by zplapplap

i haven't seen anything suggesting that gary moore was anything less than a good faith purchaser. Accordingly, i feel sorry for him. Even if he ultimately wins, this ugly situation is a costly pain in the ass that he didn't bargain for.

+1

[eric ernest]

I would be willing to be any MONETARY claim on that guitar is going to be what the guitar was worth when it was stolen, NOT what it it is worth today.

PARTICULARLY if an insurance claim was paid out on it. It would be the property of the insurance company and Ronnie would most like have to silent bid, sue, or negotiate to get it back....But hey, paying back the insurance company what they paid out in 1974 wouldn't be a problem!

[billy]

Originally Posted by eric ernest

I would be willing to be any MONETARY claim on that guitar is going to be what the guitar was worth when it was stolen, NOT what it it is worth today.

If that is the case, if Gary paid Montrose the equivalent of what it was worth when it was stolen in todays money would the courts see that as the end of the matter....