My experience with Mike Dringenberg

[joecgcmaniac]

So it goes back to what was the conversation. But there's no way the term defacing would hold up in court when you hand someone something to write on and you just don't like what they wrote. The person taking the police report would look at you like an alien.

 

 

And you are basing this statement on what exactly?

 

Chris, you clearly don't know about the law. I wanna burn stuff down and not get in trouble.

 

Just make sure no monies exchange hands and burn away.

 

I like your style

 

 

How about another analogy, just for the really really dim?

 

You go to an antique appraisal fair, you hand your $500 statuette to an appraiser for a free evaluation. He proceeds to tell you that he's jealous that you have this piece and proceeds to draw a dong on its forehead in permanent sharpie.

 

No money exchanged hands, and the person did an intention act to the piece that defaces and diminishes the value it carried prior to handing it to them.

 

The appraiser was there, set up, for the specific reason to meet the public and look at their pieces. No money was exchanged. A $500 piece was greatly diminished in value, intentionally, by someone who willingly put himself into the position of taking other people's property into their possession.

 

Don't get hung up on money being paid for some service, it's not necessary for this analysis. It's putting yourself into a position where you are handing other people's property and the responsibility you then have for it's care and safety. You are NOT allowed to do intentional acts of sabotage and defacement on the property of others. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

 

Given the amount of property damage that happened, in the state where I am located it's a Class 4 Felony, and I guarantee you the authorities take felonies against others far more seriously than our flippant friend does.

 

The penalties for defacement in excess of $300 are as follows:

 

1) mandatory minimum fine of $500 plus the actual costs incurred by the property owner or the unit of government to abate, remediate, repair, or remove the effect of the damage to the property. To the extent permitted by law, reimbursement for the costs of abatement, remediation, repair, or removal shall be payable to the person who incurred the costs.

 

2) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of criminal defacement of property to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours,

 

3) Incarceration of 1-3 years.

 

 

 

Or it's a whole lotta nuttin' depending on who you talk to. (thumbs u

 

Yeah, but you should have been able to stop him before he defaced it.

 

And no money changed hands

 

The troll really is dim, isn't he?

[5ive]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

[joecgcmaniac]

So it goes back to what was the conversation. But there's no way the term defacing would hold up in court when you hand someone something to write on and you just don't like what they wrote. The person taking the police report would look at you like an alien.

 

 

And you are basing this statement on what exactly?

 

Chris, you clearly don't know about the law. I wanna burn stuff down and not get in trouble.

 

Just make sure no monies exchange hands and burn away.

 

I like your style

 

 

How about another analogy, just for the really really dim?

 

You go to an antique appraisal fair, you hand your $500 statuette to an appraiser for a free evaluation. He proceeds to tell you that he's jealous that you have this piece and proceeds to draw a dong on its forehead in permanent sharpie.

 

No money exchanged hands, and the person did an intention act to the piece that defaces and diminishes the value it carried prior to handing it to them.

 

The appraiser was there, set up, for the specific reason to meet the public and look at their pieces. No money was exchanged. A $500 piece was greatly diminished in value, intentionally, by someone who willingly put himself into the position of taking other people's property into their possession.

 

Don't get hung up on money being paid for some service, it's not necessary for this analysis. It's putting yourself into a position where you are handing other people's property and the responsibility you then have for it's care and safety. You are NOT allowed to do intentional acts of sabotage and defacement on the property of others. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

 

Given the amount of property damage that happened, in the state where I am located it's a Class 4 Felony, and I guarantee you the authorities take felonies against others far more seriously than our flippant friend does.

 

The penalties for defacement in excess of $300 are as follows:

 

1) mandatory minimum fine of $500 plus the actual costs incurred by the property owner or the unit of government to abate, remediate, repair, or remove the effect of the damage to the property. To the extent permitted by law, reimbursement for the costs of abatement, remediation, repair, or removal shall be payable to the person who incurred the costs.

 

2) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of criminal defacement of property to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours,

 

3) Incarceration of 1-3 years.

 

 

 

Or it's a whole lotta nuttin' depending on who you talk to. (thumbs u

 

Chris- I don't want to hear any more arguments that basically say that I need to be accountable for the harm I cause to others. You're not invited to my next party.

 

No doubt, trying to tell it like it is, what is wrong with you?

 

 

[joecgcmaniac]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

 

It's the artist's fault for not charging for his signatures. Just because he was signing for free does not mean he can just deface or write whatever he wants on somebody else's property.

[comicdonna]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

OMFGWDYCF?

[comix4fun]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

 

 

Your refutation doesn't work because your synapses are firing blanks.

[DrWatson]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

Turtles.

[BeerThirty]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

 

It's the artist's fault for not charging for his signatures. Just because he was signing for free does not mean he can just deface or write whatever he wants on somebody else's property.

 

It's not even the artist's fault for not charging for his signature. If Mike felt like the person getting his signature was doing so for a reason that Mike didn't approve of, he shouldn't have signed it. It isn't his duty to administer punishment above and beyond a refusal to those who he feels are trying to take advantage of him. He intentionally tried to do what the book's owner did not want him to do: sign the book to eBay. Hell, the facilitator didn't even give him permission to personalize the book. Mike knew this and chose to "teach those speculators a lesson" by writing "to eBay on the book."

 

Again, why don't you (5ive) take the time to read the other thread? What happened is clearly laid out there. Mike clearly intended to deface a fan's book and potentially did monetary damage to that book (although, in the aftermath, it seems that Mike's actions may have had the exact opposite effect on the book). Instead, you (5ive) seem intent to make up hasty generalizations about people who collect SS sigs and the US legal system and stand by those generalizations, even though lawyers and CGC witnesses are telling you that your statements aren't even half baked.

 

 

[Menace]

Bailment: (already been described but hey maybe it can be spelled out)

 

Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the 'bailor') to another person (the 'bailee') who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.

 

 

Now when someone is asked "Would you sign these books for me please?" And anyone takes these books they are required by law to keep the items safe to the best of thier ability. This obviously would not count if the person say dropped the book of left an impression by accident. OR any accident.

 

He could have refused to touch the books.

 

But defacing books with a spiteful intention is not an accident and is a violation of the transfer of personal property. And a violation of law.

 

 

I find this conversation to be of little importance and the troll is taking time from our weekend.

[comix4fun]

Bailment: (already been described but hey maybe it can be spelled out)

 

Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the 'bailor') to another person (the 'bailee') who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.

 

 

Now when someone is asked "Would you sign these books for me please?" And anyone takes these books they are required by law to keep the items safe to the best of thier ability. This obviously would not count if the person say dropped the book of left an impression by accident. OR any accident.

 

He could have refused to touch the books.

 

But defacing books with a spiteful intention is not an accident and is a violation of the transfer of personal property. And a violation of law.

 

 

I find this conversation to be of little importance and the troll is taking time from our weekend.

 

Agreed

 

But he's dodging the "experience, knowledge, background" questions well though.

 

I guess, "Pulled this Outta My Law School for the Criminally Slow" doesn't sound good on the resume.

[Menace]

Bailment: (already been described but hey maybe it can be spelled out)

 

Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the 'bailor') to another person (the 'bailee') who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.

 

 

Now when someone is asked "Would you sign these books for me please?" And anyone takes these books they are required by law to keep the items safe to the best of thier ability. This obviously would not count if the person say dropped the book of left an impression by accident. OR any accident.

 

He could have refused to touch the books.

 

But defacing books with a spiteful intention is not an accident and is a violation of the transfer of personal property. And a violation of law.

 

 

I find this conversation to be of little importance and the troll is taking time from our weekend.

 

Agreed

 

But he's dodging the "experience, knowledge, background" questions well though.

 

I guess, "Pulled this Outta My Law School for the Criminally Slow" doesn't sound good on the resume.

 

From my limited business law classes I remembered enough that the word Bailment sparked it for me. I am sure I can't contribute as much as the real lawyers I know are here but I think everyone for the most part sees this clearly.

 

I would never want to pursue any kind of legal action I think that would reflect badly on us. But the idea that it is not a violation of trust or law is wrong.

[comix4fun]

Bailment: (already been described but hey maybe it can be spelled out)

 

Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the 'bailor') to another person (the 'bailee') who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.

 

 

Now when someone is asked "Would you sign these books for me please?" And anyone takes these books they are required by law to keep the items safe to the best of thier ability. This obviously would not count if the person say dropped the book of left an impression by accident. OR any accident.

 

He could have refused to touch the books.

 

But defacing books with a spiteful intention is not an accident and is a violation of the transfer of personal property. And a violation of law.

 

 

I find this conversation to be of little importance and the troll is taking time from our weekend.

 

Agreed

 

But he's dodging the "experience, knowledge, background" questions well though.

 

I guess, "Pulled this Outta My Law School for the Criminally Slow" doesn't sound good on the resume.

 

From my limited business law classes I remembered enough that the word Bailment sparked it for me. I am sure I can't contribute as much as the real lawyers I know are here but I think everyone for the most part sees this clearly.

 

I would never want to pursue any kind of legal action I think that would reflect badly on us. But the idea that it is not a violation of trust or law is wrong.

 

Agreed, not something to enter into lightly, but that doesn't mean what he did was 100% in the wrong and certainly counter to civil and criminal statutes.

[BeerThirty]

You people with your facts and experience don't get it. SS people are always and will always be at fault whenever something goes wrong like this. They are horrible people who are not courteous to artists. You don't get it...

 

5ive gets it.

[comix4fun]

You people with your facts and experience don't get it. SS people are always and will always be at fault whenever something goes wrong like this. They are horrible people who are not courteous to artists. You don't get it...

 

5ive gets it.

 

 

 

[brendanb438]

You people with your facts and experience don't get it. SS people are always and will always be at fault whenever something goes wrong like this. They are horrible people who are not courteous to artists. You don't get it...

 

5ive gets it.

 

I find myself asking what would have happen if Mike Dringenberg had signed these books in this manner if the person handing them over to him had been Kenny Powers..... Would have been very interesting the outcome of that interaction.

 

[BeerThirty]

Kenny Powers was there. The Dring told Kenny to let others go first because Kenny had a fat stack of books for the Dring (and because Dring clearly wanted to spend a lot of time with yours truly because I'm even more awesome than Chuck Norris on cocaine). Kenny don't around... Then the Dring started going ape on other people's books. Not cool.

[BeerThirty]

Evidently, the CGC boards can't contain Dr. Powers.. Let's try this:

 

Kenny Powers was there. The Dring told Kenny to let others go first because Kenny had a fat stack of books for the Dring. Kenny don't around... I mean, it was pretty evident that the Dring wanted to hang with KMFP and was just clearing out the commoners. Then the Dring started going ape on other people's books. Not cool. Kenny don't roll like that.

[BeerThirty]

Yep, CGC message boards don't like what Kenny has to say...

[Ogami]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

 

You should just. stop.

 

talking.

 

altogether.

[comix4fun]

Again the analogy doesn't work cause your asking for an appraisal, not a signature

 

You should just. stop.

 

talking.

 

altogether.

 

 

 

 

He'd miss the point if it was the ocean and he was standing on the beach staring at it.