Thanks once again Don, for all your exhaustive sleuthing and reporting.
To what do you attribute the reluctance/refusal of many buyers of Rudy’s fakes,some of whom you have listed above, to testify or cooperate with prosecuting authorities?
Puts a bad light on quite a few like Marc Lazar and Mission Fine Wines.
Thanks for another great post Don.
Don: I have seen this thread and have now read your post from today
concerning me. While you have made the above defamatory claims about me
to several of my wine friends, you have now posted them publicly which
requires a response. As you know, my deposition was taken under oath in
the Koch case, and I testified to the following facts:
–I was Rudy’s friend, but never his business manager.
–I never consigned or sold wine for Rudy under my name, his name, or
any other name or entity.
Moreover, in my deposition, I was not presented with any evidence
(either in documents or in testimony) to the contrary. I don’t believe
there is a “Burgwhore” or anyone else who ever told you otherwise; but
if so, I expect you to disclose the basis for your factual assertions
concerning me. These are the facts and I expect a public retraction of
your claims relating to me as they are defamatory.
Matt Lichtenberg
Interesting post, Don. I assume that many of those buyers do not want it publicly known that they were duped by Rudy. Even worse, perhaps some feel it would hinder the resale of wines they purchased from Rudy. This really creates a problem for the auction houses and their purchasers. I am interested to see what transpires with the upcoming Welland Auction at Wally’s. No idea whether any of Rudy’s wines will be consigned, but it should cause Wally’s to put a tremendous amount of effort in making sure none of them are sold at the auction.
Don Cornwell said :
…Robert Bishop. Mr. Bishiop, (who is referred to as “Bob” in the Acker documents introduced at trial), operates large hedge funds. He was listed as a purchaser of counterfeit wines from Rudy Kurniawan in the Acker Judgment against Kurniawan. He loaned $2 million to Rudy Kurniawan through Acker as advances on the 2006 Cellar I auction. That loan was repaid after the wines were sold. Mr. Bishop appears to have loaned Rudy at least $5.6 million more through Acker in 2007, when Acker was regularly extending “loans/advances” to Rudy. (I have to wonder what Mr. Bishop’s hedge fund clients feel about his judgment in dealing with Rudy.)…
Interesting comments, specially the last line … ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
So- Rudy sentencing will happen in Aug 4.
Also- Koch settled his suit with Rudy this am.
Wow, Koch rolled over on another one? I could understand the settlement with AMC if it included restitution of funds. I wouldn’t think that would be possible with Rudy given the pending sentencing and potential court-ordered restitution to other. What would Koch’s reasoning be for settling?
Can’t get blood from a stone – or an incarcerated person.
Post Removed by author
“Stone” is the bigger barrier.
Was there really anyone who, at the time this was all happening who is on record as stating this or claiming it?
If so, who??
I’ve read a lot about this, and claims by various people that they were so “on record”, but I’ve never seen any convincing “proof” of these statements/comments, etc…or that they really said anything specific-- or reported anything to the “authorities”. So, I ask this simple question of anyone who has information. Who, when, etc…and , I guess, what , precisely, were they saying when they started saying it.
Reading Don’s comments, it seems so “obvious”, but…they seem similar to comments made after the Madoff unraveling, too. (In Madoff, there were a few people who were on record as saying it was too good to be true mathematically, etc.) Hindsight sometimes gets it right…but, even then…not always.
Before Don’s summary, I had no idea how widespread (and deep) the victims were. So, thanks.
Sure, but Koch’s comments for all these years was that he wasn’t interested in the money but making sure that the truth came out. So if that was really true, he either wouldn’t settle any of the cases until people got convicted or would drop them all now because the truth is out there about what Rudy was doing. I’m just saying it seems a bit disengenuous to be riding the high horse all this time and then change your tune twice within about a week.
Great summary, Don. It really fleshes out the extent of Rudy’s perfidy.
I have a question for Todd and the attorneys here about the censorship of Don’s post. Not trying to be pi$$y about this. As a non-lawyer, I’m actually curious about the dynamics. Is there a significant liability risk for the website owner for statements made by a third party? Or is the risk borne by the poster? Or is it a case of not wanting to risk having to fund a defense against a claim, however unlikely it might be to succeed?
I’m given other feedback from various sources that some other information in the long post from today is not correct, and I’ve had to (as you have seen) remove some names, by request.
While I may not be liable for what is said, I think it best if everyone considers the information submitted as some fact (based on public filings of the courts), some conjecture, not all fact, at least until everything is hashed out properly, and this becomes part of the historical reference related to this significant trial.
Don–I’ve been away much of the day, but I am extremely troubled by your accusations relating to Matt Lichtenberg. On one hand, he has said above that he testified under oath that he wasn’t involved with Rudy’s scheme. Nevertheless, you’ve decided to publicly accuse him of involvement, based on unverified hearsay from an unnamed source. If you are going to make public accusations against someone, I think it behooves you to put your cards on the table where ALL of us can evaluate the information. As it stands, I have no idea exactly who this person might be, precisely what they may have said to you, whether something may have been misinterpreted or lost in translation, whether this mystery member of the “Burgwhores” might have any animus or any other reason to shade things or make things up, etc. Just because YOU think this unnamed person has no reason to lie doesn’t mean that he doesn’t.
Just to be clear, I’ve been a long time friend of Matt’s, and Matt has NEVER said to me any of the things that you are now claiming Matt told this unnamed person. But regardless of what Matt has said to me, as far as I know Matt (a) has never been named as a party to any of the Rudy litigation, (b) has never been identified as a subject of the FBI investigation, (c) has never been identified by ANY of the witnesses in trial or in deposition as being involved in Rudy’s scheme. Moreover, as I’m sure you appreciate, the subject of this thread has been very widely discussed in the various LA wine circles. At no time has anyone in the LA wine community ever said anything to me to suggest any involvement by Matt, much less that Matt told them he was involved.
It’s been one thing in this thread when you’ve referred to statements or allegations in court pleadings, depositions, or trial testimony–those are helpful and verifiable and often in the public record. But when you decide to publicly accuse someone of complicity based on matters not in the public record, and based on clearly inadmissible hearsay by someone you refuse to identify, I think you’ve crossed a very serious line here…
Bruce
Post removed by author
In general, I think it best to make note when information is stated as fact, and is public record, versus something heard from another individual, also stated as fact. It’s an important distinction, and I"m hearing from MANY of the named parties, Don, so I would appreciate full disclosure in differentiation of fact and conversation.
I’m sure a lot of people (eBob migrants) saw that coming and made a copy of the original. Kudos to Anthony Hall by the way. Tough to admit one bought those wines and believe them to be fake.
Don–If you had sent a private email just to Matt on this subject, that would be one thing. But for whatever reason, that’s not what you decided to do. You decided to make a PUBLIC post about Matt and his supposed connection to Rudy’s scheme. The audience is no longer just Matt–it’s the entire Berserker wine community. As a member of that community, and as a semi-active participant in this thread, I’m making a simple point: put up or shut up. If you have evidence that you think links Matt (or anyone else) to Rudy’s activities, then put it out on the table so that it can be evaluated by everyone who reads this thread.
If you’re not going to disclose the supposed basis for your public claims as they relate to Matt, I think people reading this thread are entitled to assume there is no basis for those claims. Sadly, Don, I think you’re turning a valuable discussion of wine counterfeiting into a Joseph McCarthy-style witch hunt.
Bruce
P.S. To state what should be obvious…if someone had been involved in Rudy’s scheme, then it makes no sense that they would voluntarily disclose that fact to friends in their wine circles. This is yet another reason why I’m exceedingly dubious of the unverified hearsay from unnamed sources.
I would suppose that “when” this disclosure “apparently” was made is of utmost importance as it relates to the above comment. Made in 2006 - possible. Made in 2012 - not very likely.