2 yes or no questions, Don.
Plain English Don, do you believe Lazar paid a 6 or 7 figure bribe? Yes or no
Did you attempt to call Ramona Gau (now in private practice and easily reachable) and verify what is attributed to her in the article? Yes or no
I know you donāt live here, but Iām going to again take issue with your understanding of St. Louis and Missouri politics. Iāve told you before about the prosecutorās office here (and itās probably much the same in many US cities) but you seem to believe only what you want to believe. Trying to read evidence of someoneās guilt in the actions or internal politics of the STL prosecutorās office is foolish. One third of the prosecutors have resigned since she took over? Perhaps, but attorney turnover is high in that office, gets higher any time a new prosecutor comes in, mainly took place immediately when she took over, and had more to do with budget cuts than anything ideological. Nothing to do with the governor, or with Lazar.
The source you cite is beyond biased, and has absolutely zero credibility. I live in St. Louis, and Gardner isnāt āultra-controversialā here. The only thing making it seem so are the conservatives out-state, who arenāt even in her jurisdiction, who absolutely hate her because she chose to prosecute the governor. St. Louis is a blue island on the edge of a deeply red state. Political controversy is commonplace. Moreover, the governor isnāt just alleged to have taken a photo of the woman he had an affair with āyears ago.ā He is alleged to have taken a nude photo of his mistress (a local hair stylist, also married at the time of the affair) without her permission, while she was blindfolded, less than three years ago (IIRC the SOL is 3 years, hence the rushed prosecution). He is also alleged to have attempted to blackmail her to keep the affair secret, but thatās not what he hasnāt currently been charged with any crime in that matter. By omitting those facts you make it sound as if the prosecutor is extremely irrational in bringing the case, which in turn bolsters your underlying argument that (a) Lazar is guilty of some heinous acts; and (b) the STL prosecutor has dropped the ball in failing to go after him harder. I donāt know if either of those things is true or not, but the way you have gone about your vendetta against him here on this site reflects much more poorly on you than on him, IMO. Your positions may be well founded, or may not, but the way you have gone about it strikes me as extremely questionable.
I wonder of any of these guys will apologize to Don when Lazar gets re-indited.
edited for politics by mod
The post in question, which Don quoted in its entirety, has since been completely removed from the website. Iām sure thereās a reason. Maybe because itās bullshit? Maybe they got a cease and desist from someone because it is defamatory and heresay? Donāt know.
I donāt see that happening with either the Post or NY Times. Honestly, your analogy remains somewhere between silly and just plain false. Accusing news sources with journalistic integrity of purveying false news to serve your political desires is a devious form of propaganda and nothing more. No amount of argument will reverse the pointed ineptitude of your analogy, so i will cease arguing the point.
Yeah MOPNS, NYT, same thingā¦ I must have missed those MOPNS Pulitzers.
No.
I have been even-handed throughout this process. As someone who stores wine at Domaine, I have a stake in keeping my wine safe, and I am very interested in knowing about any legal matters that may, directly or indirectly, affect my investment. This thread has been useful in helping me understand these issues.
There is a big difference between outing wine fraud for the good of the community and rehashing old news, resurrecting character issues for public shaming (no matter whether a felony or not), and attempting to provoke action against someone for minor regulatory issues. Sometimes Don has crossed that line, and other people like me - neither crusaders nor defenders - have taken him to task for it. Don has built a reputation through his premox site and through his role in outing Rudy. He is now building a reputation as holding a vendetta against Lazar whose zeal is far in excess of any crime committed, and he has relied on increasingly flimsy evidence, āstatements of factā that go well beyond what is known and what can be proven, and, now, a right wing propaganda site that published an anonymous letter that has now been retracted or removed.
I would love to know details of what happened in this case of āmissing bottlesā and the insurance claim - believe me, I like lurid details as much as the next guy. Could this case somehow be the Missing Link that proves to the world that Lazar is what Don says he is? Sure. Or it could be as much BS as the case that was dropped in Missouri. Or the case brought with ABRA in DC. We rail against the arcane rules surrounding liquor laws and regulation on a constant basis on this very forum, except when Don finds it convenient .
I would love to know if Don or anyone else who has pilloried Mark for regulatory issues has regularly paid his or her state Use Tax on wine purchased from out of state or your Amazon purchases. If you donāt like Mark, donāt interact with him. I have never met John Kapon, but I would not purchase from Acker. Thatās my prerogative. I would guess that few stone throwers here live in anything but glass houses.
Take your political shit elsewhere.
Probably coming at the same time as Don apologizes to Henry Tang.
Youāve been getting a bit of publicity recently for your good work but you hurt your credibility with posts like this. I donāt know anything about you other than what I have read and I donāt buy or sell at auction the wines you evaluate (although I have a number in my cellar), but when I read something like this, I have to question whether your opinions are truly objective or if they are instead impacted by an undisclosed bias. I wonder what a good attorney cross-examining you could do with crap like this.
First of all, I would think someone who works so closely with criminal authorities as you claim to do would know how to spell āre-indicted.ā Second, if and when Lazar gets re-indicted, Don will have done nothing to deserve an apology. It will be based on the Missouri Circuit Attorney deciding there is sufficient evidence to pursue the case and then left for the courts to decide.
Flip to your comment, though. If the recent post about the alleged bribery investigation proves to be untrue and Lazar is never charged for that, will Don apologize to Lazar? I think not.
Not only objective, but informed.
Ridding the market of truly bad actors is a goal- Even if itās uncomfortable for so many of you. And thatās why iāll go back to silence. Too many haters and supporters of bad actors here.
Ya!
Maureen,
Hundreds of people moved Rudy wine, much of it knowingly. Many collectors deny they bought Rudy wine and continue to try to foist it on unsuspecting buyers. This is your business and you know it better than anyone else.
Why is there no such targeting of Kapon? He is a helluva lot bigger a player than Lazar.
Why is there little to no targeting of rich collectors who are selling fake wines they know to be fake?
And why is Lazar such a bad actor? I am not sure of his role in the Rudy scandal, nor am i sure about this $2M insurance claim for 1300 bottles of missing wine, but most of the seeming wrongdoing that Don has pointed out revolves around the way he and his wife and their other investors have attempted to legally work around limitations to how wine is stored, transported and sold, given that Domaine has facilities in five states.
I just really want to know why you and Don arenāt going after other people.
Alex, the lots in question were and are undoubtedly suspect. Don laid out the basis for his claim in great detail on the Rudy thread. After Donās post, Christieās removed the Methuselah of 1971 La Tache from the Henry Tang auction.
I am surprised you decided to quote James Sucklingās article. Do you consider JS to be an objective authority on counterfeit wine?
I donāt know about that but I give the article a JS 100 for shooting his mouth off without any substantiation
Can one bet on this action?
Itās your choice to store wines there, but donāt say the facts havenāt been made clear.
uhhhā¦ weāre just going to ignore the child sodomy?
.
The facts as I understand them: Yes - Don had it removed. And so it wasnāt sold. It was subsequently authenticated by DRC. Did you miss that piece, or do you believe DRC isnāt an objective authority on counterfeit DRC?
Those actions were a very long time ago (S-o-L perhaps applicable ![[dance-clap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/835ce082e2fa9c96c4b7f96406bf6e9a0db882ff.gif "[dance-clap.gif]"){kind=small}
), when such deep, close relationships were better accepted, and when community perspectives were very different than those today.
Upon proactive consultation with spiritual advisers, friends, family members, legal experts, and free-room-free-board-free-jumpsuit providers, he offers his own understanding that those persons might possibly have been impacted.
Out of respect for those persons, he has requested and received from them the opportunity for privacy, self-reflection, and reconciliation.
This is all such a spectacular soap opera. Who will play Don and Marc in the made for TV drama?
Do you think we can get Morgan Freeman to be the narrator? I love his voice. Maybe James Earl Jones if Morgan is unavailable.
Who gets to play Maureen and utter the Oscar worthy line, āIām taking my ball and going homeā¦again.ā