Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[Mr Insane]

Neither of them, it should be given to me.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by brimay

Just cut the guitar in half and give the two a piece.


Problem solved.

See post #45:

Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[JimmyAce2006]

At least Ronnie is back up 53-51 in the poll LOL there is hope!

[benjammin420]

has anyone heard any developments in this matter?

I dont know who should get it, someones gonna get fucked either way.

[stinger]

Originally Posted by benjammin420

has anyone heard any developments in this matter?

I dont know who should get it, someones gonna get fucked either way.

Haven't heard anything but you're right that someone is gonna get fucked!

[billy]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

At least Ronnie is back up 53-51 in the poll LOL there is hope!

Yeah, the poll has been pretty even all the way through... so it goes to show what a mess this is, how an even amount of people think both are victims and how people can see both sides of the argument, whichever side you take in the end...

[JimmyAce2006]

i see it like this: hard core Moore fans versus honest non biased people.

[Fletch]

Well the good thing is that average people who would be on a jury have probably never heard of gary moore. So it wouldn't be his fans voting for him just honest people returning stolen property.

If you tried the same case with a stolen 1972 Corvette that somebody bought and had stolen 18 months later, and was found to be in possession of another 37 years later it would be a slam dunk.

Good thing I only steal weed whackers.

fletch

[River]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

i see it like this: hard core Moore fans versus honest non biased people.

Me too. And I'm not one of those that can see both sides of the argument.

[billy]

Originally Posted by Fletch

Well the good thing is that average people who would be on a jury have probably never heard of gary moore. So it wouldn't be his fans voting for him just honest people returning stolen property.

If you tried the same case with a stolen 1972 Corvette that somebody bought and had stolen 18 months later, and was found to be in possession of another 37 years later it would be a slam dunk.

Good thing I only steal weed whackers.

fletch

Yep, but the laws a strange thing.... in UK law, if you own a property (of whatever value) but you leave it empty, and a squatter lives in it for 12 years without you makeing a claim, then in law ownership goes to the squatter....(or thats how it was when i watched a documentary a couple of months ago..)

I'm not a Gary Moore fan or Montrose fan, i just see it as i see it.... and i think its unfair to suggest that this is just a Gary Moore fans sticking together thread... just because you don't agree with them, because in just the same way i could suggest this thread is just a Ronnie Montrose fans sticking together thread, but in whole honesty i think this thread just shows how divided peoples unbiased opinions are on this unfortunate subject.....

[River]

Originally Posted by billy

Yep, but the laws a strange thing.... in UK law, if you own a property (of whatever value) but you leave it empty, and a squatter lives in it for 12 years without you makeing a claim, then in law ownership goes to the squatter....(or thats how it was when i watched a documentary a couple of months ago..)

I'm not a Gary Moore fan or Montrose fan, i just see it as i see it.... and i think its unfair to suggest that this is just a Gary Moore fans sticking together thread... just because you don't agree with them....

USA and UK law in these respects is quite similar - it comes from the same root. Leaving a property vacant and having it squatted upon just isn't the same as having an item stolen.

[billy]

Originally Posted by River

USA and UK law in these respects is quite similar - it comes from the same root. Leaving a property vacant and having it squatted upon just isn't the same as having an item stolen.

Sorry, i edited my thread before you posted this one.... but what i would like to say is.... Gary Moore never stole trhis guitar... he bought it legally.

[340swinger]

Originally Posted by billy

Sorry, i edited my thread before you posted this one.... but what i would like to say is.... Gary Moore never stole trhis guitar... he bought it legally.

But its illegal to knowingly own or possess stolen property. He unknowingly bought a guitar that belonged to someone else,period. Because GM didn't know it was stolen doesn't make it a legal transaction. The guitar should go back to Ronnie. It was STOLEN from him. What happened between then and the time the guitar resurfaced is irrelevant, its still a stolen guitar,and legally goes back to its rightful owner, Ronnie Montross.

[River]

Originally Posted by billy

Sorry, i edited my thread before you posted this one.... but what i would like to say is.... Gary Moore never stole trhis guitar... he bought it legally.

No problem. In the USA, it's a crime to even possess stolen property, regardless of how you came about it. If you don't know it's stolen, they just don't prosecute.

I believe it's the same in the UK but I don't know - I think our laws are virtually identical as we inherited our property (and many other) laws from English Common Law.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by Fletch

Well the good thing is that average people who would be on a jury have probably never heard of gary moore. So it wouldn't be his fans voting for him just honest people returning stolen property.

If you tried the same case with a stolen 1972 Corvette that somebody bought and had stolen 18 months later, and was found to be in possession of another 37 years later it would be a slam dunk.

Good thing I only steal weed whackers.

fletch

Good analogy with the vette; i have had 5 of them!

[JimmyAce2006]

It's not like Ronnie left the guitar to a squatter / or left it vacant. He filed a police report and has been looking for it for a long time. And the crime happened in the USA, so it would fall under US jurisdiction.

[olschoolblues]

i love how every one on Montrose's side doesnt bring up the fact that he knew about it for a decade and did nothing about it, honestly, f&*^ off montrose. and im very impressed about the lack of knowladge on law, because every one on montrouse's side likes to talk out there ass by saying its legally his, well bull f---ing shit to that. Statute of limitations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there now we can all shut up because there is proof to why its a joke to even try to get that thing back, granted id still want it back but id also be a huge asshole if i made a public deal about it 10 years after i knew about it.

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Good analogy with the vette; i have had 5 of them!

Was going to write Cadillac but I coudn't spell it. The Capital C was already there so I improvised and came up with Corvette. Pretty slick, eh?

By the way, I've had (have) two Corvettes. One's in the garage with a bunch of weed whackers leaning up against it.

fletch

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by olschoolblues

i love how every one on Montrose's side doesnt bring up the fact that he knew about it for a decade and did nothing about it, honestly, f&*^ off montrose. and im very impressed about the lack of knowladge on law, because every one on montrouse's side likes to talk out there ass by saying its legally his, well bull f---ing shit to that. Statute of limitations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there now we can all shut up because there is proof to why its a joke to even try to get that thing back, granted id still want it back but id also be a huge asshole if i made a public deal about it 10 years after i knew about it.

So where did you go to law school again? Did your legal research on Wikipedia, eh?

Hang on, let me log in to Wikipedia, and change that for you... While I'm logged in, is there any fake celebrity deaths you want me to record? Let's do Micheal J Fox, or maybe Mickey Rourke... he was looking pretty rough in The Wrestler.



fletch

[diceman]

Originally Posted by olschoolblues

i love how every one on Montrose's side doesnt bring up the fact that he knew about it for a decade and did nothing about it, honestly, f&*^ off montrose. and im very impressed about the lack of knowladge on law, because every one on montrouse's side likes to talk out there ass by saying its legally his, well bull f---ing shit to that. Statute of limitations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there now we can all shut up because there is proof to why its a joke to even try to get that thing back, granted id still want it back but id also be a huge asshole if i made a public deal about it 10 years after i knew about it.

There are many factors which can toll the statute of limitations from running. Who said definitively that Ronnie knew about Gary having the guitar for 10 years? I was under the impression that it was a recent discovery.

Guys like me spend years studying the law before spending a career immersed in it - I'm only 1.5 years (or 1/2 way through) my law school studies, so I'm not an expert - but I have much much more knowledge under my belt than what Wikipedia gave you... The Statute of Limitations IS the only thing that could be between Ronnie and HIS GUITAR, but it isn't that black and white. Also, if the affirmative defense of a statute of limitations which has run isn't raised in Moore's first responsive pleading (I assume it will be - or else his attorney will have a malpractice claim coming at him), then the statute of limitations is IRRELEVANT! Moore could bring it up in the middle of trial and it wouldn't matter, as that defense is lost if not raised immediately. If Ronnie can show that the Burst is of artistic significance (and that it was when it was stolen), I believe that the CA S.O.L. will allow 3 years from the time of discovery to bring the claim. Fraud also has a very lenient S.O.L. - whether or not a good attorney can construe this as a fraud claim is another question (although I think it could be worked). I guess, all I'm saying is that you're really running your mouth a lot for a guy who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Its all good though - rant on, not knowing what the hell I'm talking about doesn't stop me most of the time.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by olschoolblues

i love how every one on Montrose's side doesnt bring up the fact that he knew about it for a decade and did nothing about it, honestly, f&*^ off montrose. and im very impressed about the lack of knowladge on law, because every one on montrouse's side likes to talk out there ass by saying its legally his, well bull f---ing shit to that. Statute of limitations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there now we can all shut up because there is proof to why its a joke to even try to get that thing back, granted id still want it back but id also be a huge asshole if i made a public deal about it 10 years after i knew about it.

This isn't about taking sides. I am not on Montrose's side. I am on the side of justice. I had $15,000 stolen from me on ebay last December for a fake auction. Since I have not been able to find the international culprits / sue them, does that mean I am just sitting on it? I did find an intermediary that they used in their scheme here in the USA, but I don't have a good case against him. Does that mean the people who stole it deserve to keep the money? Or that the people who indirectly received benefits from the fraud deserve to keep it? I don't think so. It isn't about being an A-hole for wanting your rightful possession back. It is about justice and who really should have it. The law might have limitations, but that is up to a judge to decide.

[River]

Originally Posted by Fletch

So where did you go to law school again? Did your legal research on Wikipedia, eh?

Hang on, let me log in to Wikipedia, and change that for you... While I'm logged in, is there any fake celebrity deaths you want me to record? Let's do Micheal J Fox, or maybe Mickey Rourke... he was looking pretty rough in The Wrestler.



fletch

I must add, that particular Wiki article is one of the worst-written I've ever encountered.

[zplapplap]

Originally Posted by olschoolblues

i love how every one on Montrose's side doesnt bring up the fact that he knew about it for a decade and did nothing about it, honestly, f&*^ off montrose. and im very impressed about the lack of knowladge on law, because every one on montrouse's side likes to talk out there ass by saying its legally his, well bull f---ing shit to that. Statute of limitations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there now we can all shut up because there is proof to why its a joke to even try to get that thing back, granted id still want it back but id also be a huge asshole if i made a public deal about it 10 years after i knew about it.

[jonesy]

Interesting Story for sure, I think this is a pic of "Stripe" 9-2227?

[rick13]

I can't wait till the real lawyers weigh in.....what do you think, in the next couple of years ? This post ought to be locked by then.
Rick

[stinger]

I heard that Montrose has known about it being in GM's possesion for a long time. RM has stated this in interviews from, if I recall correctly, 2002. I also heard that he has tried to contact GM with no or little response. The argument that Montrose has done nothing until recently is simply not true.

Some people seem to think RM wants his guitar back cause now it is worth more. Maybe. If it was his he can have any reason for wanting it back.

Did he file a police report. Yes. In fact that happened after he stopped the show he was playing and had the house lights turned on to search for it. You see, the guitar was stolen right off stage where it was sitting on a stand while RM played bass for a song. WHen the song was done, he turned to pick it up again it was gone.

Here is a another question for some of you GM fans. HYPOTHETICALLY If Gary had lost this guitar 35 years ago and it ended up in Montroses possesion, should Gary get it back?

Here's another. If the BEano burst was located, would Eric CLapton be entitled to get it back? Or didn't he search for it enough?

[ZampraZ]

This is a tough case. I can see how both would want to keep it. But if Montrose has failed to do anything until now I think Gary should keep it.

[billy]

Originally Posted by stinger

Here is a another question for some of you GM fans. HYPOTHETICALLY If Gary had lost this guitar 35 years ago and it ended up in Montroses possesion, should Gary get it back?

Here's another. If the BEano burst was located, would Eric CLapton be entitled to get it back? Or didn't he search for it enough?

If the table's were turned and Montrose was in Gary's shoes i would think that montrose should keep it....

Who ever has the beano burst, know's it was stolen and has kept it hidden ever since then.... the circumstances are completly different, Moore had no knowledge of this guitar been stolen until recently.

......and apparently Clapton know's of the beano bursts where abouts.

[stinger]

Originally Posted by billy

If the table's were turned and Montrose was in Gary's shoes i would think that montrose should keep it....

Who ever has the beano burst, know's it was stolen and has kept it hidden ever since then.... the circumstances are completely different, Moore had no knowledge of this guitar been stolen until recently.

......and apparently Clapton know's of the beano bursts where abouts.

Does Clapton know? Pure rumor. But that wasn't the point. If Clapton actually has it back now, then I think that's great! It's where it belongs.

Moore has known about the hotness of the guitar for about as long as Montrose has been aware of him having it. Montrose did not sit there and say nothing about it. Gary Moore just wasn't cooperating with him apparently. This whole issue has been happening for a while now. It has only been recently "in the news".

My interest in this issue started a couple years ago when I was wondering about the guitar that Montrose used on his first Montrose record. I learned of its history at that time. I learned of its theft and that it eventually made its way to Gary Moore. Like I say, this is not some secret recently revealed. I assumed that the guitar I was wondering about was the one that Gary Moore had. Turns out that this is not that guitar at all! The stolen guitar was gone about a year before the recording was made.

[billy]

Originally Posted by stinger

Does Clapton know? Pure rumor. But that wasn't the point. If Clapton actually has it back now, then I think that's great! It's where it belongs.

What i read was he knows of its where abouts and who has it but he has no intention of trying to get in back.... but like you said pure rumor.