http://www.woodytone.com/2009/05/20/wtf-ronnie-monrose-suing-gary-moore-to-get-back-59-les-paul/ WoodyTone = ToneWoody Tue, 15 May 2012 21:37:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.woodytone.com/2009/05/20/wtf-ronnie-monrose-suing-gary-moore-to-get-back-59-les-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-1966 outerrealm Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:57:53 +0000 http://www.woodytone.com/?p=694#comment-1966 First, regardless of whether Moore bought the guitar in good faith the law sees it as receiving stolen property and rightfully so. He must give it up. If he refuses and it is determined to be Montrose's he can be charged with 4th degree larceny. As far as the two countries go there is something called the Uniform Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments Acts, and if both countries are signatories the prevailing party can file in the courts of the country of jurisdiction and that court system can enforce the judgment by seizing the guitar or other assets. That's why our country can get away with freezing foreign countries' assets. Lastly, he does not have to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which is the standard for criminal trials and not civil actions. He merely has to prove "more likely than not" or that the "preponderance of the evidence" is in his favor. Even if Montrose does not have an original receipt photos can be analyzed in detail, testimony on the guitar can be taken from Geils, and if Montrose gave the serial number to law enforcement which is likely at the time of the theft that would be very compelling evidence. Moore is an idiot for not responding, it makes him look guilty. Had he not been stupid he probably could have worked out a compensation deal with Montrose that would make giving it up less painful. By acting like an asshole he deserves to be treated like one. And by the way Montrose has a right to have him stop using the guitar. The court can enforce an injunction to that effect in order to protect the guitar pending judgment, and if you think about it and you owned a '59 burst would you let ANYONE play it whom you didn't know, let alone without your permission? First, regardless of whether Moore bought the guitar in good faith the law sees it as receiving stolen property and rightfully so. He must give it up. If he refuses and it is determined to be Montrose’s he can be charged with 4th degree larceny. As far as the two countries go there is something called the Uniform Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments Acts, and if both countries are signatories the prevailing party can file in the courts of the country of jurisdiction and that court system can enforce the judgment by seizing the guitar or other assets. That’s why our country can get away with freezing foreign countries’ assets. Lastly, he does not have to prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, which is the standard for criminal trials and not civil actions. He merely has to prove “more likely than not” or that the “preponderance of the evidence” is in his favor. Even if Montrose does not have an original receipt photos can be analyzed in detail, testimony on the guitar can be taken from Geils, and if Montrose gave the serial number to law enforcement which is likely at the time of the theft that would be very compelling evidence. Moore is an idiot for not responding, it makes him look guilty. Had he not been stupid he probably could have worked out a compensation deal with Montrose that would make giving it up less painful. By acting like an asshole he deserves to be treated like one. And by the way Montrose has a right to have him stop using the guitar. The court can enforce an injunction to that effect in order to protect the guitar pending judgment, and if you think about it and you owned a ’59 burst would you let ANYONE play it whom you didn’t know, let alone without your permission?

]]> http://www.woodytone.com/2009/05/20/wtf-ronnie-monrose-suing-gary-moore-to-get-back-59-les-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-533 WoodyTone! - Ronnie Montrose’s ‘Rock Candy’ Tone… Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:54:45 +0000 http://www.woodytone.com/?p=694#comment-533 [...] may have been used for that recording, but it appears that the ‘59 ‘burst that was allegedly stolen and which he wants “back” from Gary Moore wasn’t one of them: In the lawsuit, it states that that guitar was stolen in [...] [...] may have been used for that recording, but it appears that the ‘59 ‘burst that was allegedly stolen and which he wants “back” from Gary Moore wasn’t one of them: In the lawsuit, it states that that guitar was stolen in [...]

]]> http://www.woodytone.com/2009/05/20/wtf-ronnie-monrose-suing-gary-moore-to-get-back-59-les-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-149 WoodyTone! - Update on the Montrose-Moore ‘Burst Lawsuit Tue, 26 May 2009 13:19:55 +0000 http://www.woodytone.com/?p=694#comment-149 [...] highlights of the article – but if you have not read the article on the filing of the lawsuit, click here to read that first. > [The] 1959 Gibson Les Paul guitar [he] bought from J. Geils for [...] [...] highlights of the article – but if you have not read the article on the filing of the lawsuit, click here to read that first. > [The] 1959 Gibson Les Paul guitar [he] bought from J. Geils for [...]

]]>