Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[snaredrum]

Originally Posted by stinger

I am not certain but I think it may be a '58.

mmm... beardy...

[olschoolblues]

hmmmm, im trying to read up even more on it

[olschoolblues]

Originally Posted by diceman

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.

damn....now that is how you awnser a question, i am sorry forum, i will take back my comment cuz this guy has the knowladge. lol if you had the first post this thread would be one page and the poll would def be more one sided thank you for telling us all that.

[Rhubarb Red]

I think Gary Moore should keep it - here's why.

I remember reading a copy of Guitar World magazine in 1990 when the Still Got The Blues album was released and there was a big interview with Gary Moore in GW and this "Stripe" LP was well documented in the article and Gary was very open that he'd just bought it as an alternative to the Peter Green LP to save that guitar some wear and tear. There were some very detailed colour pics of the guitar and I think it even quoted the serial number as I remembered the consecutive 2s.

That was almost 20 years ago - GW was/is a very high profile guitar magazine - possibly the most widely circulated after Guitar Player. Now, are you telling me that Ronnie Montrose or one of his entourage or family or friends or SOMEONE who knew of the guitar's disappearance didn't see this article - and the many 100s that Gary Moore has subsequently done down the years as well as countless photo-shoots/gig shots of him playing this guitar? I've got the DVD Gary Moore at the Montreux Jazz Festival and, sure enough, this guitar is featured heavily over both discs and four separate concerts spanning 20 years. The concert footage is so clear that close-ups of the guitar reveal all the stress crackles in the lacquer as well as the flame in the maple.

So why didn't Ronnie Montrose stake a claim over the past 20 years that most of the guitar playing world and 'Burst community has known that Gary Moore owns this guitar, bought in good faith from a reputable dealer? Montrose owned the guitar for around four months and suddenly he's convinced the LP Moore has is the one that was stolen.

There is only one existing picture of Montrose with this guitar (although there are quite a few of him with another burst, an iced tea one with a Bigsby "ghost" behind the tailpiece and the strap button swapped from the standard position of behind the neck heel like on an SG). What is needed from Montrose is provenance that he actually owned it (beyond the filing of the police report of the theft) and clear and incontrovertible evidence that the guitar he had stolen is the one that Moore now owns. I'm hugely doubtful Montrose can bring this evidence to light. Just saying it's his guitar proved nothing.

Also this isn't like extraditing a person - the US may have blamed the entire collapse of Enron on three British bankers who were making a market in Enron stock swaps and had the three men extradited to stand trial in Texas, but I think the case of the guitar will be heard in the UK High Court as the guitar "resides" in the UK and Moore is a UK citizen (he's from Belfast, not Dublin) and I suspect the guitar never leaves the UK, simply because it's too valuable. So I think the guitar will stay in the UK and that's where Montrose will have to mount his legal challenge.

What you guys in the US have to know about the high echelons of the British Judiciary is they are Lords of the Realm and sit in the House of Lords - they are not elected as in the USA, therefore, they tend to be elderly and slightly out of touch. But they won't be swayed by smooth talking US lawyers (in the UK courts, lawyers aren't allowed to speak) as lawyers have to brief barristers, as only barristers can address the court. So if it comes to trial in the UK, the Noble Lords will throw Montrose's case out through lack of supporting evidence and the fact Gary Moore has never hidden the fact he owns this guitar and Montrose has only recently tried to lay claim to it, possibly motivated by the fact Moore sold the Peter Green Burst for a tad under $1 million.

So if he fancies chancing his arm against the British Judiciary, Montrose better have deep pockets. Their Lordships have a nasty habit of lumping the loser with all the court costs and have been known to fine claimants for wasting the court's time by bringing before them stupid cases built on flimsy evidence. So Montrose better budget around £1 million ($1.6 million) for each week of a trial. If he hasn't got that kind of money, I'd suggest he tells his US lawyers to desist before they drag him into bankruptcy.

Here's how I think the trial in the Royal Courts of Justice will go:

Montrose's barrister: "M'lud, my client wrote such rock classics as Bad Motor Scooter and Rock Candy and, even though the Court has seen very little hard evidence to support my client's claim that the guitar in question belonged to him, my client would like the guitar back."

Judge: "I've heard enough - Mr.Moore can keep the guitar he bought in good faith 20 years ago and that your client has known about all this time. I find Mr. Montrose to be a delusional character who has convinced himself of some alleged wrong-doing all those years ago and, in bringing this flimsy case, has wasted the court's time. I feel that this mysterious character "Mr. Sammy Hagar" has a lot to answer for in the original theft of the instrument, so I therefore order that all the accumulated costs of this trial be charged to Mr. Montrose and also sentence him to three years in the Tower of London. Case dismissed."

It could happen....

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by Rhubarb Red

I think Gary Moore should keep it - here's why.

I remember reading a copy of Guitar World magazine in 1990 when the Still Got The Blues album was released and there was a big interview with Gary Moore in GW and this "Stripe" LP was well documented in the article and Gary was very open that he'd just bought it as an alternative to the Peter Green LP to save that guitar some wear and tear. There were some very detailed colour pics of the guitar and I think it even quoted the serial number as I remembered the consecutive 2s.

That was almost 20 years ago - GW was/is a very high profile guitar magazine - possibly the most widely circulated after Guitar Player. Now, are you telling me that Ronnie Montrose or one of his entourage or family or friends or SOMEONE who knew of the guitar's disappearance didn't see this article - and the many 100s that Gary Moore has subsequently done down the years as well as countless photo-shoots/gig shots of him playing this guitar? I've got the DVD Gary Moore at the Montreux Jazz Festival and, sure enough, this guitar is featured heavily over both discs and four separate concerts spanning 20 years. The concert footage is so clear that close-ups of the guitar reveal all the stress crackles in the lacquer as well as the flame in the maple.

So why didn't Ronnie Montrose stake a claim over the past 20 years that most of the guitar playing world and 'Burst community has known that Gary Moore owns this guitar, bought in good faith from a reputable dealer? Montrose owned the guitar for around four months and suddenly he's convinced the LP Moore has is the one that was stolen.

There is only one existing picture of Montrose with this guitar (although there are quite a few of him with another burst, an iced tea one with a Bigsby "ghost" behind the tailpiece and the strap button swapped from the standard position of behind the neck heel like on an SG). What is needed from Montrose is provenance that he actually owned it (beyond the filing of the police report of the theft) and clear and incontrovertible evidence that the guitar he had stolen is the one that Moore now owns. I'm hugely doubtful Montrose can bring this evidence to light. Just saying it's his guitar proved nothing.

Also this isn't like extraditing a person - the US may have blamed the entire collapse of Enron on three British bankers who were making a market in Enron stock swaps and had the three men extradited to stand trial in Texas, but I think the case of the guitar will be heard in the UK High Court as the guitar "resides" in the UK and Moore is a UK citizen (he's from Belfast, not Dublin) and I suspect the guitar never leaves the UK, simply because it's too valuable. So I think the guitar will stay in the UK and that's where Montrose will have to mount his legal challenge.

What you guys in the US have to know about the high echelons of the British Judiciary is they are Lords of the Realm and sit in the House of Lords - they are not elected as in the USA, therefore, they tend to be elderly and slightly out of touch. But they won't be swayed by smooth talking US lawyers (in the UK courts, lawyers aren't allowed to speak) as lawyers have to brief barristers, as only barristers can address the court. So if it comes to trial in the UK, the Noble Lords will throw Montrose's case out through lack of supporting evidence and the fact Gary Moore has never hidden the fact he owns this guitar and Montrose has only recently tried to lay claim to it, possibly motivated by the fact Moore sold the Peter Green Burst for a tad under $1 million.

So if he fancies chancing his arm against the British Judiciary, Montrose better have deep pockets. Their Lordships have a nasty habit of lumping the loser with all the court costs and have been known to fine claimants for wasting the court's time by bringing before them stupid cases built on flimsy evidence. So Montrose better budget around £1 million ($1.6 million) for each week of a trial. If he hasn't got that kind of money, I'd suggest he tells his US lawyers to desist before they drag him into bankruptcy.

Here's how I think the trial in the Royal Courts of Justice will go:

Montrose's barrister: "M'lud, my client wrote such rock classics as Bad Motor Scooter and Rock Candy and, even though the Court has seen very little hard evidence to support my client's claim that the guitar in question belonged to him, my client would like the guitar back."

Judge: "I've heard enough - Mr.Moore can keep the guitar he bought in good faith 20 years ago and that your client has known about all this time. I find Mr. Montrose to be a delusional character who has convinced himself of some alleged wrong-doing all those years ago and, in bringing this flimsy case, has wasted the court's time. I feel that this mysterious character "Mr. Sammy Hagar" has a lot to answer for in the original theft of the instrument, so I therefore order that all the accumulated costs of this trial be charged to Mr. Montrose and also sentence him to three years in the Tower of London. Case dismissed."

It could happen....

oh... this again.

#1- The thing I notice about this post is all the GM guys try to dig very deeply for excuses why GM should keep it, whereas all the RM guys point to legal reasons why he should get it back.

#2- I don't think GM has denied that it is the same guitar. If he doesn't deny it then RM doesn't have to prove it.

#3- It is filed in California. What that means to me is GM will never do shows in CA again, and possibly the States all together. In CA you can talk to the judges all you want. RM's lawyers have no intention of going to court in the UK, they will fight on their own turf or not at all or they are sucky attorneys.

#4- All due respect to Rhubarb Red for his opinion, and it is a very interesting and enlightening point of view on how it works over the pond. Thanks.

#5- Send me your weedwhacker.

fletch

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by Rhubarb Red

I think Gary Moore should keep it - here's why.

I remember reading a copy of Guitar World magazine in 1990 when the Still Got The Blues album was released and there was a big interview with Gary Moore in GW and this "Stripe" LP was well documented in the article and Gary was very open that he'd just bought it as an alternative to the Peter Green LP to save that guitar some wear and tear. There were some very detailed colour pics of the guitar and I think it even quoted the serial number as I remembered the consecutive 2s.

That was almost 20 years ago - GW was/is a very high profile guitar magazine - possibly the most widely circulated after Guitar Player. Now, are you telling me that Ronnie Montrose or one of his entourage or family or friends or SOMEONE who knew of the guitar's disappearance didn't see this article - and the many 100s that Gary Moore has subsequently done down the years as well as countless photo-shoots/gig shots of him playing this guitar? I've got the DVD Gary Moore at the Montreux Jazz Festival and, sure enough, this guitar is featured heavily over both discs and four separate concerts spanning 20 years. The concert footage is so clear that close-ups of the guitar reveal all the stress crackles in the lacquer as well as the flame in the maple.

So why didn't Ronnie Montrose stake a claim over the past 20 years that most of the guitar playing world and 'Burst community has known that Gary Moore owns this guitar, bought in good faith from a reputable dealer? Montrose owned the guitar for around four months and suddenly he's convinced the LP Moore has is the one that was stolen.

There is only one existing picture of Montrose with this guitar (although there are quite a few of him with another burst, an iced tea one with a Bigsby "ghost" behind the tailpiece and the strap button swapped from the standard position of behind the neck heel like on an SG). What is needed from Montrose is provenance that he actually owned it (beyond the filing of the police report of the theft) and clear and incontrovertible evidence that the guitar he had stolen is the one that Moore now owns. I'm hugely doubtful Montrose can bring this evidence to light. Just saying it's his guitar proved nothing.

Also this isn't like extraditing a person - the US may have blamed the entire collapse of Enron on three British bankers who were making a market in Enron stock swaps and had the three men extradited to stand trial in Texas, but I think the case of the guitar will be heard in the UK High Court as the guitar "resides" in the UK and Moore is a UK citizen (he's from Belfast, not Dublin) and I suspect the guitar never leaves the UK, simply because it's too valuable. So I think the guitar will stay in the UK and that's where Montrose will have to mount his legal challenge.

What you guys in the US have to know about the high echelons of the British Judiciary is they are Lords of the Realm and sit in the House of Lords - they are not elected as in the USA, therefore, they tend to be elderly and slightly out of touch. But they won't be swayed by smooth talking US lawyers (in the UK courts, lawyers aren't allowed to speak) as lawyers have to brief barristers, as only barristers can address the court. So if it comes to trial in the UK, the Noble Lords will throw Montrose's case out through lack of supporting evidence and the fact Gary Moore has never hidden the fact he owns this guitar and Montrose has only recently tried to lay claim to it, possibly motivated by the fact Moore sold the Peter Green Burst for a tad under $1 million.

So if he fancies chancing his arm against the British Judiciary, Montrose better have deep pockets. Their Lordships have a nasty habit of lumping the loser with all the court costs and have been known to fine claimants for wasting the court's time by bringing before them stupid cases built on flimsy evidence. So Montrose better budget around £1 million ($1.6 million) for each week of a trial. If he hasn't got that kind of money, I'd suggest he tells his US lawyers to desist before they drag him into bankruptcy.

Here's how I think the trial in the Royal Courts of Justice will go:

Montrose's barrister: "M'lud, my client wrote such rock classics as Bad Motor Scooter and Rock Candy and, even though the Court has seen very little hard evidence to support my client's claim that the guitar in question belonged to him, my client would like the guitar back."

Judge: "I've heard enough - Mr.Moore can keep the guitar he bought in good faith 20 years ago and that your client has known about all this time. I find Mr. Montrose to be a delusional character who has convinced himself of some alleged wrong-doing all those years ago and, in bringing this flimsy case, has wasted the court's time. I feel that this mysterious character "Mr. Sammy Hagar" has a lot to answer for in the original theft of the instrument, so I therefore order that all the accumulated costs of this trial be charged to Mr. Montrose and also sentence him to three years in the Tower of London. Case dismissed."

It could happen....

Your argument is a mute point; the jurisdiction is in the USA since the theft took place there. It doesn't matter if the guitar was in a magazine. Nobody is calling Moore a thief. In fact, he is a victim. Sadly, the guitar belongs to Montrose. It was never legally sold to Moore in the first place. The only thing that might be on Moore's side is the statute of limitations. But they might be more lenient towards Montrose. Moore's claim would be against the business who sold it to him.

[Fletch]

I think I said this before, but this is how I think it will go down... it will go to court in CA. GM will be a no-show, RM will win the case. Over in three minutes. Then it will be up to RM to collect, which is the hard part. That is why I think GM will not be back in the US anytime soon.

RM might be in for a few bucks to make sure GM gets served papers, but that's it.

fletch

[Tsukiyomi]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Your argument is a mute point; the jurisdiction is in the USA since the theft took place there. It doesn't matter if the guitar was in a magazine. Nobody is calling Moore a thief. In fact, he is a victim. Sadly, the guitar belongs to Montrose. It was never legally sold to Moore in the first place. The only thing that might be on Moore's side is the statute of limitations. But they might be more lenient towards Montrose. Moore's claim would be against the business who sold it to him.

+1 I'm a huge GM fan but the law is the law, and this post sums things up nicely imo

[stinger]

Who says Montrose didn't notice that magazine 20 years ago? Everyone seems to think he is only first now trying to get this thing back. This has been going on for years now. He is only recently gone to court with this.

The biggest thing though that seems to get ignored is that Montroses lawyers wouldn't be going to court if they didn't believe they had evidence and taken into consideration all the applicable laws in this case. They must think they have a chance to win.

I would not be surprised if Gary Moore were to win this case, he would sell it as soon as possible afterword. Right now it is un sellable. It would only have value after this case is resolved.

[Fletch]

True... GM is basically stuck with that guitar until this is resolved. He can't sell it to anyone and nobody in their right mind would buy it with the prospect that it could get taken away from them as stolen property. Not worth a nickel.

fletch

[billy]

Originally Posted by Fletch

True... GM is basically stuck with that guitar until this is resolved. He can't sell it to anyone and nobody in their right mind would buy it with the prospect that it could get taken away from them as stolen property. Not worth a nickel.

fletch

Unless he sells it to some private collector and it goes underground... I can't see that happening anyway out of the three burst Gary has owned this is the one he kept... there's a reason for it.

I read somewhere else "that if a buyer buys something in good faith, and can prove it, such as producing a receipt from a legitimate business, they can not be held liable. That doesn't mean the aggrieved party can't try to recover, but the burden is on them." Maybe thats why GM hasn't responded to Montrose.

There is also the statue of limitations which has been mentioned many times before... and like Rhubard red said where is all the evidence that this guitar was owned by montrose (i'm not saying it wasn't but i haven't seen much in way of proof.)

All i'm saying is the law can be interpreted in different ways to fit both arguments. And this poll show's how people can see both side's of the coin...

I find it quite funny with people stating how if you side with Gary Moore then the only reason is only because your a fan of his....

[stinger]

Originally Posted by billy

Unless he sells it to some private collector and it goes underground... I can't see that happening anyway out of the three burst Gary has owned this is the one he kept... there's a reason for it.

It's hot! Perhaps he tried but no one wanted to touch it. Of course it might really be his favorite.

I read somewhere else "that if a buyer buys something in good faith, and can prove it, such as producing a receipt from a legitimate business, they can not be held liable. That doesn't mean the aggrieved party can't try to recover, but the burden is on them." Maybe thats why GM hasn't responded to Montrose.

There is also the statue of limitations which has been mentioned many times before... and like Rhubard red said where is all the evidence that this guitar was owned by montrose (i'm not saying it wasn't but i haven't seen much in way of proof.)

No one has to show any proof to us. Just bring it too court. One has to assume there is proof or they wouldn't go to court. Is there enough to prove it to a judge? It remains to be seen.

All i'm saying is the law can be interpreted in different ways to fit both arguments. And this poll show's how people can see both side's of the coin...

And most of us here are offering up opinions with no knowledge of law or the actual evidence. Just speculation. If we knew what evidence was there and knew the applicable law we all might have different opinions from what we have now.

I find it quite funny with people stating how if you side with Gary Moore then the only reason is only because your a fan of his....

People are biased. They may not mean to be that way but we all are. If this poll had asked the question: "If a guitar player had a burst stolen many years ago and later located it and could prove it, should the guitar be returned?" I think the results would be different. It would have eliminated any fan preferences. An interesting thread anyway.

[River]

The way the votes are going, if anyone from MLP wants to borrow my weed-whacker they're going to have to fill out an application.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by River

The way the votes are going, if anyone from MLP wants to borrow my weed-whacker they're going to have to fill out an application.

And leave a $500 deposit. Cash only.

[River]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

And leave a $500 deposit. Cash only.

Yeah, buddy. "In God we trust - all others pay cash."

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by River

Yeah, buddy. "In God we trust - all others pay cash."

I always thought this forum was a place where you could trust people and deal honestly with others like me. Not so sure about that now! There are the few who have a reputation for pulling the wool over someone's eyes, but we know who they are. But the fact that the score is 58 for GM and 57 for RM says something.

[Mr. Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

I always thought this forum was a place where you could trust people and deal honestly with others like me. Not so sure about that now! There are the few who have a reputation for pulling the wool over someone's eyes, but we know who they are. But the fact that the score is 58 for GM and 57 for RM says something.

Yeah... but not everyone knows who they are and you can't warn anybody no matter how truthful. The thread will get quickly deleted. Lame.

[River]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

I always thought this forum was a place where you could trust people and deal honestly with others like me. Not so sure about that now! There are the few who have a reputation for pulling the wool over someone's eyes, but we know who they are. But the fact that the score is 58 for GM and 57 for RM says something.

"No matter where you go, there you are."

[Fletch]

I have River's weed whacker.

fletch

[Fletch]

It's been 20 years and he's not getting it back.

fletch

[River]

Originally Posted by Fletch

It's been 20 years and he's not getting it back.

Dick.

[Fletch]

cry me a River bitch


(JK!!!!)

[tonebone]

So how friggin' long do we have to wait for the court settle this?

...oh, there's appeals, too.

Shoot, they'll both be using walkers by the time this is resolved.

[Tsukiyomi]

Originally Posted by tonebone

So how friggin' long do we have to wait for the court settle this?

...oh, there's appeals, too.

Shoot, they'll both be using walkers by the time this is resolved.

Ah but whose walkers?

[billy]

Originally Posted by stinger

People are biased. They may not mean to be that way but we all are. If this poll had asked the question: "If a guitar player had a burst stolen many years ago and later located it and could prove it, should the guitar be returned?" I think the results would be different. It would have eliminated any fan preferences. An interesting thread anyway.

very true, and if another thread was started next to that one with the question: " If after owning a burst for 20 years which you bought from a reputable dealer in good faith, someone come along and says that it's their guitar which was stolen 30 years ago, would you return it?? I think the results would be the opposite.

[tonebone]

How about Claptons beanoburst....and if he saw that it was posted online somewhere? Maybe Alvin Lee or some musician in some far flung country had it now? TS for Eric?

Just wondering is all.

[benjammin420]

Originally Posted by tonebone

How about Claptons beanoburst....and if he saw that it was posted online somewhere? Maybe Alvin Lee or some musician in some far flung country had it now? TS for Eric?

Just wondering is all.

there are some who say EC knows where that guitar is

[billy]

Originally Posted by benjammin420

there are some who say EC knows where that guitar is

Yep, i heard this... thats why i mentioned it before, apparently he has no interest in getting it back.

[guitarbob123]

ronnie should have it until he dies of brain cancer.
then it should be given back to moore

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by guitarbob123

ronnie should have it until he dies of brain cancer.
then it should be given back to moore

What is this brain cancer thing with Montrose? someone mentioned that earlier in the thread; I have never heard he had that; even googled it & found no results......? what's the deal?