Universal Horror Fakes

NOTE: These updates relate to the lawsuits involving the Universal horror fakes and are arranged with the newest update on top. For our original report, click here. The court record pleadings are summarized for your convenience. To help you keep track of the pieces involved, we have compiled 2 different lists: Alphabetized by Title List by Collector LAMP Members can go to the Legal Section on Posters and see copies of the actual court records. To see our report on other fakes on the market, click HERE.

NEWEST UPDATE - 12/15/2009

The FBI investigation is moving along very well according to the agent in charge. Meanwhile, both civil lawsuits are proceeding through the court system.

James (Jim) A. Gresham v. Kerry T. Haggard, Tiffany Haggard, Jaime Mendez, Jaime Mendez Restoration & Conservation and John Doe and Mary Roe

On December 8, 2009, Judge Edmonds entered a Temporary Restraining Order which essentially enjoins defendants Kerry T. Haggard and Tiffany Haggard, their heirs, agents, employees, etc., from selling, transferring or otherwise disposing of their personal assets, including their home, bank accounts, IRA's, etc. This order shall exist until such time that the Court has ruled on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is presently scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2010, or until otherwise advised by the Court. An Order Regarding Procedures For Preliminary Injunction Hearing was entered into the record on December 10, 2009. This Order establishes the timeline for submitting briefs, responses and motion regarding the TRO.

Ronald Magid v. Kerry Haggard

On December 3, 2009, plaintiff/counter-defendant Ronald Magid filed his Amended Reply to Counterclaims asserted by defendant Kerry Haggard in the above named lawsuit. This reply generally denies the counterclaims and asserts his four affirmative defenses: (1) Truth; (2) Fraud as to Haggard; (3) Failure to Perform; and (4) No Basis in Law and Fact.

Copies of these pleadings are available to LAMP Members HERE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE - 12/02/2009

There has been a significant development in the Gresham v. Haggard lawsuit which should have a major impact on not only the Gresham case, but also the Magid v. Haggard civil lawsuit and the ongoing FBI investigation.

On December 1, 2009, plaintiff James Gresham filed his "Plaintiff's First Amended Verified Complaint for Fraud and Related Claims And Renewed Demand for Trial for Jury." This amendment included the claims made in the original complaint as well as new evidence that was brought to light by the sworned statements of Jaime Mendez, the restorer who was alleged to have created the fraudulent copies, and Randall Reth, a former employee of Jaime Mendez. Sworn affidavits of these two individuals were included with the amended complaint.

In his affidavit, Jaime Mendez avers that in approximately late 2006 to early 2007, he (Mendez) was approached by Defendant Kerry T. Haggard to restore original and reproduction movie posters and lobby cards. According to the affidavit, Haggard provided Mendez with approximately 90 older lobby cards and movie posters of nominal and less value for the reproductions that he requested be restored for Haggard's personal use. Haggard informed Mendez that he intended to display the reproductions in his home and either preserve or sell his original. The affidavit presented the process used by Mendez and a listing of the titles that he reproduced. Mendez was paid for his work. Mendez further testified that he was not aware of Haggard's intentions to sell the reproductions and that if he had, he would not have restored the posters.

Affiant Randall Reth stated that if called to trial, he would testify that: he was an employee of Jaime Mendez from 9/2007 to 2/2009; during his employment Kerry Haggard was in the shop on numerous occasions; he personally saw Haggard working with Mendez and other employees on posters and lobby cards; he later became aware that many of the cards worked on were fakes, including two Black Cat one sheets that he personally worked on; and that it is his belief that Mendez knew that the cards and posters were fake.

Copies of these pleadings are available to LAMP Members HERE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE - 11/30/2009

James (Jim) A. Gresham v. Kerry T. Haggard, Tiffany Haggard, Jaime Mendez, Jaime Mendez Restoration & Conservation and John Doe and Mary Roe

On November 23, 2009, after reviewing both the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as to the Prohibition on of Transfer of Assets by Defendants, Kerry Haggard and Tiffany Haggard and Kerry T. Haggard and Tiffany Haggard's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Restraining Order, the court submitted a Temporary Restraining Order which: (1) ordered that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order is granted in part and denied in part; further ordered that Defendant Kerry T. Haggard and Defendant Tiffany Haggard, their heirs, assigns, agents, and those acting on their behalf are enjoined from selling, disposing, dissipating or otherwise transferring of any of the thirty one assets described on the list attached to the order; and further ordered that a continued hearing on Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order will be held on Friday, December 4, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. At the hearing the court will determine if the temporary restraining order should be dissolved or continued for a short period until a motion for preliminary injunction can be briefed and heard.

Copies of these pleadings are available to LAMP Members HERE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE - 11/17/2009

Ronald Magid v. Kerry Haggard

On November 16, 2009, plaintiff Ronald Magid filed an Amended Reply to Counterclaims which essentially eliminated the Fifth Affirmative Defense contained in his initial reply to counterclaims. The Fifth Affirmative Defense referred to the ongoing civil lawsuit filed by James Gresham against Kerry Haggard which generally sought to prove "Haggard has acted in fraud and has developed and operated with the pattern of fraud in the transactions of movie posters, through the United States on an ongoing and continuous basis."

James (Jim) A. Gresham v. Kerry T. Haggard, Tiffany Haggard, Jaime Mendez, Jaime Mendez Restoration & Conservation and John Doe and Mary Roe

On November 11, 2009, plaintiff filed into the record his Plaintiff's Response to Defendants, Kerry T. Haggard and Tiffany Haggard, Affirmative Defenses, generally denying all allegations.

Copies of these pleadings are available to LAMP Members HERE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James (Jim) A. Gresham v. Kerry T. Haggard, Tiffany Haggard, Jaime Mendez, Jaime Mendez Restoration & Conservation and John Doe and Mary Roe

CIVIL LAWSUITS

Ronald Magid v. Kerry Haggard

On October 23, 2009, both parties filed into the record their "Joint Report To The Court" which was prepared per the Court's order for the Scheduling Conference currently set for November 9, 2009. The Scheduling Conference will, among other things, establish deadlines for written discovery, depositions, dispositive motions, additional parties, etc.

This report includes a synopsis of the principle issues in the case from the perspectives of each party. Magid reiterates the claims in his initial complaint. In addition, he identifies Carol Tincup as the expert who examined the alleged fake cards and Jamie Mendez (dba Jamie Mendez Restoration & Conservation) (sic) as the party to whom Haggard sought out to create the fake cards for Haggard.

Defendant's synopsis reiterates the answers and claims included in his answer and affirmative defenses filed in response to the complaint, including assertions that he received cards from plaintiff MAGID that were fraudulent and valueless and that plaintiff MAGID continues to conduct a "smear campaign" against Haggard on various web sites including Filmfan.com ("MOPO") and Not Suitable for General Exhibition and on blogs including "Universal Poster Forgeries.

As to amendments to pleadings, the plaintiff has taken the position that:

The defendant's position is that HAGGARD believes there is a possibility that the original items he provided to MAGID may have been tampered with after they left his hands. He reserves the right to amend his pleadings if new facts come to light during the course of discovery.

Both parties have indicated that they may move the Court for summary judgment.

Each party has submitted a proposed discovery schedule for written pleadings as well as depositions. Plaintiff intends to take the depositions of Haggard, Jamie Mendez (sic), Randy Reth, an unidentified employee of Jamie Mendez (sic) and possibly James Gresham. Defendant Haggard plans to depose Magid, his experts, any witness disclosed by Magid and possibly other individuals who handled and/or dealt with the subject items.

Plaintiff's counsel indicated counsel wishes to discuss settlement. Defendant wishes to employ the services of a private or non-profit dispute resolution body for mediation. Each party submitted a proposed timeline for the proceedings with plaintiff suggesting a trial date for mid-to-late May, 2010, while defendant is proposing a trial date of August 30, 2010.

As to other issues, plaintiff's counsel indicates that counsel has been contacted by a U.S. Attorney and the F.B.I. regarding an investigation as to Mr. Haggard, not initiated by plaintiff. If there are governmental proceedings that should issue, it is most likely that this case would be stayed.

All of these issues should be resolved and timelines established at the Scheduling Conference.

Defendants Kerry T. Haggard and Tiffany Haggard have filed their "Defendant Kerry T. Haggard and Tiffany Haggard's Answer to Verified Complaint for Relief From Fraud and Additional Claims and Demand for Jury Trial and Affirmative Defenses." In their answer, the defendants admit to certain claims, neither admit nor deny certain claims, and specifically deny certain claims, for example: Defendants deny that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.00; Defendants deny that defendant Kerry T. Haggard and Tiffany Haggard are husband and wife; Defendants deny that Haggard and Mendez cooperated and conspired in the fabrication of copies (fakes) of such movie posters and lobby cards; Defendants deny that Tiffany Haggard knew full well of the actions of her husband and cooperated with him; and Defendants deny that as a result of the defendants' fraudulent acts and conspired actions, plaintiff has been harmed/damaged.

The defendants' answer also states twelve affirmative defenses including: (1) failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted; (2) acts of another or others for whose conduct defendants are not responsible; (3) laches or applicable statues of limitation; (4) plaintiff's own acts or omissions; (5) failure to mitigate damages; (6) lack of standing; (7) unclean hands; (8) to the extent warrant of authenticity was made or implied by defendants, such warranties were made in good faith; (9) items not rejected in timely manner; (10) since items were in existence and capable of inspection, the maxim caveat emptor applies; (11) Court lacks jurisdiction because the current in controversy is less than $75,000 and (12) Court lacks jurisdiction over defendant Tiffany Haggard.

Copies of these pleadings are available to LAMP Members HERE.

ADDITIONAL POSTERS ADDED TO FRAUD LIST

Additional posters have been added to both the alphabetical and the listing report by collectors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE - 10/19/2009

On October 18, 2009, defendant Jaime Mendez filed "Defendant Mendez's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim and Lack of Jurisdiction" into the record of the above-captioned matter. In his memorandum in support of this motion, defendant Mendez presents two issues to the Court:

As related to personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff Mendez asserts in his motion:

As to Plaintiff Gresham’s complaint alleging four causes of action, including relief for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of oral contract, Mendez moves the Court to dismiss all claims. As to claims for fraud and misrepresentation, Mendez seeks dismissal based on the fact that the complaint fails to allege the time, date, place or content of any misrepresentation, conversation, statement or other contact between Plaintiff and Defendant Mendez which could have been the basis of any fraud even if true. As to unjust enrichment, Mendez asserts that this claim must fail because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant Mendez received anything of benefit from the Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff did not allege that he had an oral or written agreement with Defendant Mendez, this claim also fails and should be dismissed.

Copies of these pleadings are available to LAMP Members HERE.

ADDITIONAL POSTERS ADDED TO FRAUD LIST

Additional posters have been added to both the alphabetical and the listing report by collectors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REVISED UPDATE 10/19/09

USE OF BLACK LIGHT TO DETERMINE FORGERIES

When this was initially reported here on October 10, 2009, we received feedback that suggested that legitimate airbrushing paints can also illuminate under black light. We brought this to the attention of an expert who performed several tests. His tests concluded that the paints used by MOST movie poster restorers WILL NOT illuminate under black light. We are currently awaiting comparison pictures and will post them as soon as they are received. In the meantime, anyone who feels they may have a fake may use the "black light" method BUT REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. There ARE paints that are sometimes used that will "glow."

UPDATE 10/10/09

It has been brought to our attention that black lights are used by paper collectors in other areas to help determine the age of the paper. We are told that paper manufactured from the early 1980's forward glows under black light. We were provided this image which shows how one of the posters that has been determined to be a forgery actually glows when a standard black light is placed over it.

The letters on older paper will be dark and not glow.

However, from what we understand, the paper will only glow on areas that have NOT been airbrushed or painted over. If the poster has been totally airbrushed, repainted or coated in any way, the paper will not glow.

Black lights can be purchased from any home supply store. If anyone would like to test their posters, we are told that you turn out all the lights in the room and then pass a black light over the posters. The glow is obvious.

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT conclusive. This is a step that a collector who suspects he may have a fake can take before proceeding to an expert. If the poster has any spots that glow, then it should be taken to an expert for further review. Please note though that even if it doesn't glow, it could still be a fake. This is like the early in-home pregnancy tests -- results were not always accurate but may give you a momentary emotional surge one way or the other.

This simple test applies to the card stock forgeries that involved laser images being fused to older paper. This also applies to the larger paper stock that was linenbacked. However, most of the paper stock was covered so you have to look for small uncovered areas to glow.

A test was done on the S2 poster and it DID NOT glow because of the unusual French rag paper that was used.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE 10/7/09

We have been forwarded a letter from the FBI that we want to make sure EVERYONE who has been a victim of the fake posters reads...

I appreciate all of your assistance. I am sure you will continue to discover more fake pieces in the coming months. If it is not too much of a problem, would you be able to provide my name and contact information to any of your clients that appear to be victims in this case?  I understand that there may be individuals that do not want to be identified, however, it's important that we try to locate all of the fakes. Additionally, I will try to get the court to order restitution for the victims that I can identify.

Once again, thanks for all your help.

Regards,

Mike Mullahy


Michael P. Mullahy
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
80-02 Kew Gardens Road
Kew Gardens, NY 11415

718-286-7456 (office)
718-286-7361  (fax)

If you have been a victim of the fake scandal, PLEASE contact this agent

HIGH PRICED FRAUDS - UPDATE

In September, the poster hobby was rocked by news of a large number of fraudulently produced high-priced rare movie posters hitting the market. These frauds are the subject of two separate civil lawsuits. We prepared an initial report outlining what we knew about the situation on September 7, 2009. Here's a link to that initial report.

As this situation hits at the heart of this hobby, we plan to follow the details and report them. Here is our first updated report regarding these frauds.

MARKETPLACE

(Updated 9/28/2009)

There have been several new discoveries and developments since our first report and we wanted to bring you up to date on what we have gathered so far.

In our first report, we covered how the card stock was sanded thin and a new layer placed on top. We showed a microscopic image of the edge of the card to show the layers. So you could identify the fakes by either microscope OR putting the edge of the card in a solution and it coming apart. If you are not familiar, you might want to re-read our first report.

We now have some disturbing new discoveries to add. Three card stock pieces have now been discovered that were NOT done this way. Instead of sanding down the entire card and placing a new layer over it, on these three pieces, they only sanded the MIDDLE and replaced THAT. This leaves all the edges of the card original and NO layer line.

There has also been very little focus on the one sheets and 3 sheets (there is even a question of a 6 sheet). There were numerous produced on extremely high-res scanners and then linen backed and restored to cover the newer paper. This was not done from images taken from the internet. These were scanned at full size for higher resolution and with the backing and restoration make these very difficult to tell without lifting a corner from the linenbacking and examining the paper.

We also have several new collectors that have come forward and shared their information with us. We have divided off the list of collectors and pieces into a separate document so you can also start to see the duplication of titles. And we have the combined list of titles and pieces with links into our archive to show you which pieces have been discovered. To review the list of poster frauds reported by collectors, click HERE.

For a combined listing of these posters, click HERE.

CIVIL LAWSUITS

Ronald Magid v. Kerry Haggard

(Updated 9/28/2009) - On September 21, 2009, Terry Haggard filed his "Answer and Counterclaim" in the lawsuit brought against him by Ronald Magid. (See Initial Report for Background on this lawsuit). Mr. Haggard has denied the majority of allegations contained in the lawsuit, including: all allegations of fraud; traveling to Los Angeles and meeting with Magid in June, 2008 and reviewing certain lobby cards; that certain items named in the lawsuit were non-original or fake; and that certain items named in the lawsuit were presented to Haggard as consideration for twenty items offered. In addition, Haggard denies that Magid paid 20 authentic original motion pictures items to Haggard in California in June and/or August, 2008 and alleges that certain items named in the lawsuit were not original authentic motion picture items. Haggard further denies that the 1931 Frankenstein title card was a forgery. His answer also includes twenty affirmative defenses.

Haggard has also filed a Counterclaim against Magid alleging, among other things, that in or about December, 2007 and February, 2008, Haggard purchased from Magid 25-30 miscellaneous cards and posters for $50,000.00. As was his custom, Haggard sold and/or traded to others numerous items he purchased from Magid. At the end of July, 2009, Haggard began receiving complaints from buyers of the items that he had purchased from Magid and resold to various individuals. Haggard's customers asserted that the items were "fake" and that Haggard had defrauded them. Haggard alleges that he engaged an expert to inspect the items he had purchased from Magid and retained in his own possession. After inspecting same, it was discovered that each and and every one of the remaining items obtained from Magid was fraudulent and valueless. At about that same time, Haggard further alleges that Magid published on websites and blogs false statements regarding Haggard and the items that Magid had previously purchased. In support of his claim for libel relief, Haggard asserts that "These statements have appeared on various websites including FILMFAN ("MOPO") and NOT SUITABLE FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION and on blogs including 'Universal Poster Forgeries.'" His counterclaim requests damages for: (1) Breach of Oral Contract; (2) Fraud and Deceit; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (4) Libel.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for November 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

James (Jim) A. Gresham v. Kerry T. Haggard, Tiffany Haggard, Jaime Mendez, Jaime Mendez Restoration & Conservation and John Doe and Mary Roe

(Updated 9/28/2009) - No further proceedings as of this date.

For more information or to add to the listing of alleged fakes, please send an email to edp@LearnAboutMoviePosters.com