"Forged" fingerprints

[FineArtRegistry]

.

[Emily Rose]

Hank, here is the link to the paintings by Jackson Pollock. That you requested.


http://www.fineartregistry.com/search_r ... =&show=all


Teri, it seems to me that if you had focused on all the good in the art world instead of trying to search for the bad, you may have gone to higher places. But you chose the negative route.

Also, try and have representation the next time you go to court. Is it true that you filed wrongly and defaulted. If you can, please answer honestly! Well, I have pretty much said what I came to say. And perhaps one day we will meet in court.

Again, Mr. Wertheim I really don't know about fingerprints, but I do know about honesty, intregrity, goodwill, and other virtues I've learned along the way. The Canadian man that has been accused prior to trial carries all of these qualities. How ironic it will be when one day you and others will be using the equipment that he has developed and designed for the next generation of forensic scientists.

Well, my visit to this forum is done. Good luck to all of you.

Emily Rose

[H. B. James]

Hank, here is the link to the paintings by Jackson Pollock. That you requested.
http://www.fineartregistry.com/search_r ... =&show=all

Thank you for the link to the Pollocks registered with the Fine Arts Registry. But the comment you made with which I take issue was this:

She is trying to sell Pollock paintings on her website that are tagged by FAR, without any attempt at authenticating them.

Now, as I went through the link you provided, a couple of things struck me. Firstly, it appears that "provenance" was established for the paintings registered as Pollocks. Secondly, unless I am mistaken, those are merely registered paintings and they are not for sale. Thirdly, again unless I am mistaken, even if a painting is for sale on that website, it is for sale by the current owner, not by Teri Franks or Fine Art Registry. If I read the website information correctly, Fine Art Registry is a site on which "members" list items they have authenticated and registered as genuine in order to help them establish legitimacy, or "members" may offer their artwork for sale directly, without the sale, proceeds, or even a percentage of the sale price going to Fine Art Registry.

Emily Rose, could you clarify this for me? Maybe Ms Franks could answer these simple questions: Are you selling Jackson Pollock paintings? Is it "without any attempt at authenticating them?" Am I incorrect in my interpretation of the website?

I know this is a little far afield of the fingerprint discussion, but I am trying to be fair to the "other side." To get back to that discussion, isn't there a police or FBI investigation going on in regards to Mr. Wertheim's charge that Pollock's fingerprints were forged? Pat, what can you say about that? Ms Franks, can you tell us what's going on?

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Mr. Wertheim, if grown adults go on a cruise and decide to purchase art that is their choice. And from your post, you suggest that if they were more sober that perhaps they would not make the same decision. I venture to say that someone who is drunk in a car accident and kills someone would probably feel the same way the next day.

My point exactly, Emily Rose, although the possible consequences of drunk driving are far worse than for drunk bidding. But either way, you lose. It's only a matter of degree.

“Emily Rose” . . . a film character who is under Demonic Possession.

Thanks for the clue, Peter. I hadn't figured out the "Emily Rose" handle, but that explains it. This lady needs to be exorcised of her demonic possession by Paul Biro.

Pat, who had access to that painting prior to you examining it? Please answer the question honestly.

You mean, alone? As in, who had access for the act of forging the fingerprints? Well, Paul Biro, for one. Ken Parker, for another. Teri Franks? No, I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge, she has never been alone with the painting. But how about me? Nutcrack implied that because I had a stamp with Pollock's fingerprint, I must have been the one to forge the fingerprints. Wow!

You know, we who have participated in this thread could wake up with bloody horse heads in our beds!

What a movie this will be -- "The Exorcist" meets "The Godfather," with a plot line of forged fingerprints, senseless alliteration, and bad metaphors!

Well, my visit to this forum is done. Good luck to all of you.

Ah. Going to cut your losses and skedaddle before you get lampooned and humiliated like poor nutcrack, eh?

She is trying to sell Pollock paintings on her website that are tagged by FAR, without any attempt at authenticating them.

Now, as I went through the link you provided, a couple of things struck me. Firstly, it appears that "provenance" was established for the paintings registered as Pollocks.

Not exactly, Hank. Some of those Pollocks listed as registered have not been authenticated (no provenance). But for those, it clearly states they have not been authenticated.

Some great stuff here. Not up the humor standards set by Nutcrack, but then, he set the bar pretty high. Keep coming back and practicing, Emily Rose, and maybe you can be the grand butt of jokes like Nutcrack. Or have you really gotten smart enough to "abandon ship?"

[FineArtRegistry]

.

[antonroland]

This is interesting enough to make me want to read the whole thread

[antonroland]

This thread has been hilarious, but Emily Rose you have contributed a non sequitur. I googled some of the terms

Yes it has and not to revive a dead horse but I simply must correct you on one small issue...

Surely you must have GOGGLED those terms...

[antonroland]

He is an interesting name to goggle (John C Golfis).

Just in case you good peeps missed this...

[H. B. James]

Indeed, I had missed that. Emily's posts were rife with spelling errors. But perhaps with all the allusion to boats, Emily was diving for facts and really meant "goggled."

[antonroland]

Indeed

[clpexco]

Group,

Ah the joys of forum administration... one of the biggest challenges is when posts go over the line and when they do not. Sorry, nutcracker... yours did.

So you can understand the criterion, a post that moves into personal attacks rather than attacking facts or issues is 'over the line'. This forum is a professional avenue for examiners or interested persons to exchange information. It was never intended to be a forum for personal attacks and slander. Please temper each statement with whether it's productive to substantiate a viewpoint or fact. But even if you feel so, if the statement is slanderous to a named individual or someone not using an alias, it will be deleted. The obvious issue is accountability for one's words.

Another issue raised in your post involves the IP addresses of posters. Although I do maintain permanent records of posts including the addresses of posters, I do not distribute this information or associated alias information to the public or the other forum posters. One simple reason for this is that there are excellent contributions from examiners who would otherwise not post for liability reasons. Likewise, there may be examiners who express both sides of legitimate issues using an alias with the intent of spreading more knowledge and information and spuring more critical thought from readers than otherwise possible. This practice is well within the intent of this forum, but personal attacks and airing skeletons for the sake of character defamation are not.

Productive contribution is welcome, but continued slander will continue to be deleted. Examples include tag-phrases such as "..., you slob" that serve no purpose in supporting the concept you wish to relate.

Let's be positive and keep the discussion to the issues. Thank you for respecting our forum!

-the administrator

[nutcracker]

No Teri, I am the voice of the silent majority. The voice of the people you have betrayed, for years! The ones who you brought into "your world" of lies and deceit. Speak to you? How many times more do I need to speak with you on the phone and in person? It's getting old Teri. Old. Your stupid collection of fakes which you try and get authenticated. Please, enough of your BS. Just shut your trap and go back to your "world" of deceit, panic, anxiety and frustration. Your sick world of attacking people both personally and professionally, your neighbors, colleagues, artists. You think you can get away with ruining people's lives and not have to pay for it in some way? Yes, you truly are a nut aren't you? And yes, Teri, I am the nutcracker! The one with all the info that can destroy your career. Maybe its time you give ME a call if you really want to talk business.

Yes, welcome to the world of Theresa Franks, CEO of Fine Art Registry, a world of denial, manipulation, control and ultimately....failure.

[Alphabrit]

I sent an email several weeks ago to Biro's website asking where he obtained his Latent training, I have yet to get a response.

[R T]

Mrs. Logan Franks, aka Ms.Teri Franks, used this phrase in the beginning of the second paragraph of her May 20th post......"Since it is me and my company", this reveals a great deal about one's demeanor. Using "me" first before all others, reveals one's "ego and self importance". Had the following been used, secrets of self would not have been so blatantly exposed. "Since Pat Wertheim, my company, and I, are the focus, etc". Franks, goes on to say,[in part]
"straight from the horse’s mouth, there may be some sensitive issues I may not be able to address".

ARTBLOG

Article 27......9/1/07 THIS IS A TEST FOR ANSWERS
Speaking of curators taking a different path, check this out. FINE ART REGISTRY, LLC SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION: A Phoenix based company that specializes in marketing independent artists is the subject of a private investigation for fraud, according to two individuals; a columnist that works for the company and a former artist whom the company represented. The Fine Art Registry, LLC, based out of Phoenix Arizona, asked one of it's skilled, young artists to forge a Richard Diebenkorn painting for a high-end buyer, according to the source. "FAR represented my artwork for a period of time. During that time, I was asked by the CEO if I could paint a Diebenkorn in turn for $50,000. They were going to sell it for $750,000 to an unsuspecting private collector and give it a certificate of authenticity. I refused to take part in the scam and moved on," said the source. Paintings by Richard Diebenkorn (1922-1993), can fetch upwards of $6 Million, according to auction records and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. After a year-long struggling with the dilemma, the young artist decided to cooperate with a private investigator and an embedded journalist, currently writing for the company on a per-article payment agreement. "In the next few weeks, heads are going to roll", said the journalist, who is also an attorney somewhere on the east coast. "The CEO of the company specializes in exploiting young artists and slandering those who do not cooperate with her," the source said. According to Arizona Division of Revenue, The Fine Art Registry, LLC names Theresa Franks as the CEO.

Do you suppose the journalist/attorney on the east coast [Middlebury, Vt]
could be Cindy Hill?

So much for the "truth and ethics" that Franks wanted to share with Nutcracker and Emily Rose....and any one else....in her May 20 post.

The unmitigated gall to even utter words such as "Truth & Ethics", considering the above investigation and Franks announcment of a partnership with....

John C. Golfis & Gamut Control Fine Art Reproductions, January 2008. John C, Golfis, a known convicted felon who has served time in numerous State & Federal Prisons, for art fraud, wire fraud, burglary, rape, a listed sex offender, assault, etc. Who is on the "wanted" list at the present time.

The erroneous claim by Pat Wertheim, this is the second time a rubber stamp has been used in fingerprint forgery, ever.

Pat Wertheim, needs to do some more research, there are numerous such cases using a rubber stamp. With Pat's self proclaimed expertise, who was going to dispute him and obtain a second opinion. Someone did just that, the Netherlands.... Rembrant forensic scientist are
convinced the Wertheim findings are extremly flawed. However they require at least another month for a firm conclusion.





[/quote]

[Pat A. Wertheim]

The erroneous claim by Pat Wertheim, this is the second time a rubber stamp has been used in fingerprint forgery, ever. . . . . Pat Wertheim, needs to do some more research, there are numerous such cases using a rubber stamp. With Pat's self proclaimed expertise, who was going to dispute him and obtain a second opinion. Someone did just that, the Netherlands.... Rembrant forensic scientist are
convinced the Wertheim findings are extremly flawed. However they require at least another month for a firm conclusion.

Where do all these anti-FAR folks come from without any knowledge of fingerprints? Okay, let's dissect this allegation from R T, another hater of Teri Franks who is afraid to use his/her real name.

First, I did an exhaustive search to obtain every English language article ever written on the topics of fingerprint forgery and fabriction when I was doing research in the early to mid 1990s. There was exactly one article documenting an actual case of fingerprint forgery. Never mind all the novels, stories, TV shows, movies, etc., that use fingerprint forgery as a plot device. Those, R T, are fiction, a concept that you, nutcracker, and Emily Rose have trouble differentiating from the truth. And yes, R T, I have a copy of the TV special in the Dutch language, produced in the Netherlands about 15 years ago, showing how to forge fingerprints and I have visited the Danish website on the topic, too. Those were not real, documented cases, but maybe that is where the person who forged the prints on Parker's painting learned how to do it. Funny coincidence that you should mention The Netherlands. Freudian slip there, I think.

Now, speaking of the Netherlands, Henk Groenendal of the Dutch police did a research project into forgery at the same time as I did mine. We didn't even know each other nor were we aware of the fact that we were researching the same topic at the same time on different continents. Surprise -- we reached exactly the same conclusions! Henk was dealing with the allegations of forgery by defense attorneys in the Netherlands who were trying to raise the issue to get fingerprints thrown out. In fact, his research was stirred in part by that Dutch television special I mentioned. But no cases were documented, only spurious charges by defense attorneys and criminals who were too stupid to wear gloves in the first place, but who were trying to make up for their stupidity by compounding it with the charge that their fingerprints had been forged at crime scenes.

Second, you state someone has disputed me (no name, which seems to be SOP for you and nutcrack and Emily Rose), but then you state it will take them a month to reach a conclusion. Hogwash. A true expert in forgery would not take a month to reach a firm conclusion, nor would he/she announce he/she was convinced I was wrong before completing an examination. Sounds like he/she has already reached a conclusion and expects to take a month to figure out how to attack me. There's a good scientist for you! Good luck.

Third, I have never heard of "Rembrant forensic scientist." Maybe some of our Dutch friends have. I'll email a couple and ask, including Henk. In fact, I'll send Henk my report and all my images for him to look at. I had already thought about doing that. As I have said all along, any qualified expert in forgery will have no trouble verifying my results. Everything present in the prints on Parker's Pollock was forecast in my research, and Henk's too, for that matter.

You list an anonymous source, a beginning young artist, as stating that he/she was asked to forge a painting. I have a lot of trouble with your story, just on the face of it. Maybe some of the other readers of this forum believe it or have other information to corroborate it. Anybody?

Everybody who knows me knows that I conduct independent examinations and do not sell my opinion based on the amount of a fee. I invite any competent fingerprint expert with knowledge and expertise in fingerprint forgery to review my work. I invite anybody to submit the evidence in this case blindly to another qualified expert (not an all-purpose expert who gets paid for supporting a predetermined conclusion). I am fully confident my conclusions and my report will pass verification and peer review. I look forward to the FBI picking up this case and having their laboratory go over it with a fine tooth comb. When that happens, Pat Wertheim will no longer be the threat you and nutcrack and Emily Rose are so frightened of -- the FBI will take my place. Will you then spread your lies and nonsense about the FBI, as well? Yes, you probably will, and you will also expect the readers of this forum to believe that they, too, are in the pay of Teri Franks, Art Enemy #1.

No, R T, you have cast yourself in the same mold with nutcrack and Emily Rose as somebody who is threatened by all of this. There is a high dollar scam in this mess somewhere. Tell us, are you a part of it, too?