Buying Geronimo's bow & arrows: The Frazier court case

So, what is the back story on the Owsley/Frazier Museum court case? I can't think that a businessman like Owsley (can the CJ run a worse picture of him, by the way...it should say Jowlsley) was going into major transactions and getting duped. Maybe the IRS is on his heels? Or was he too trusting?

I have absolutely no inside knowledge about this case, but have followed it closely for several reasons. My best guess is that OBF was far too trusting (his side of the argument, at least) due to health issues and many other distractions. We'll certainly know more when the case is decided, of course.

It's a breach of contract case, not a criminal case. It's unbelievable to me that the US Attorney's office sought an indictment in this case.

[Robin Garr]

It's a breach of contract case, not a criminal case. It's unbelievable to me that the US Attorney's office sought an indictment in this case.

It also befuddled me that (according to the CJ) the prosecutors feigned amazement and anger at the notion that "prosecutors don't make indictments, grand juries do." What's the famous quote about a good prosecutor being able to persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?

That's the quote and it is true. Grand juries only hear the prosecutors side of the case. They hear case after case, and it is rather obvious that they are expected to rubber stamp the prosecutor's charges.

I would think even a crummy prosecutor should be successful. The indictment is usually the easy part.

I've heard about this story through back channels, and even though I'm a raving liberal, I think Frazier has a case. This looks like a fairly clear-cut fraud case, and the couple involved may as well be labeled a gentle version of Bonnie and Clyde.

This looks like a fairly clear-cut fraud case,

Not even half of the evidence has been presented yet . . . how could you already know that all the elements of the criminal counts have been met?

This looks like a fairly clear-cut fraud case,

Not even half of the evidence has been presented yet . . . how could you already know that all the elements of the criminal counts have been met?

It's hard to believe this case would have gone this far if there wasn't at least enough merit to proceed to trial. Whether the charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is another issue.

I do have inside knowledgw: I did the business case analysis for what is now the Frazier International History Museum while it was still in the planning stages & while M. Salisbury was the Exec Director. All I can say is that Owsley did indeed trust him as though he was his son, and was totally taken advantage of thru clearly fraudelent practices, which were also a total conflict of interest with Mr. Salisbury's position as ED of a non-profit.

I can't comment on anything criminal as I don't know what constitutes a criminal vs. civil action.

Deb

Not doubting what anyone's said so far, but how do you reconcile that with what came out from yesterday's trial in this morning's CJ (albeit a buried article); OBF's longtime secretary, a friendly witness, talking about him cutting private checks to Salisbury (commissions?) and that she and another guy there (don't remember his name) were basically out to get the Salisbury's.

This looks like a fairly clear-cut fraud case,

Not even half of the evidence has been presented yet . . . how could you already know that all the elements of the criminal counts have been met?

It's hard to believe this case would have gone this far if there wasn't at least enough merit to proceed to trial. Whether the charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is another issue.

I agree with that Steve, but enough evidence to proceed to trial is a far cry from a "clear-cut case".

This looks like a fairly clear-cut fraud case,

Not even half of the evidence has been presented yet . . . how could you already know that all the elements of the criminal counts have been met?

It's hard to believe this case would have gone this far if there wasn't at least enough merit to proceed to trial. Whether the charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is another issue.

I agree with that Steve, but enough evidence to proceed to trial is a far cry from a "clear-cut case".

OK, I might have overplayed my hand on that one.

This looks like a fairly clear-cut fraud case,

Not even half of the evidence has been presented yet . . . how could you already know that all the elements of the criminal counts have been met?

It's hard to believe this case would have gone this far if there wasn't at least enough merit to proceed to trial. Whether the charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is another issue.

I agree with that Steve, but enough evidence to proceed to trial is a far cry from a "clear-cut case".

OK, I might have overplayed my hand on that one.

You were just channeling your inner prosecutor.

Michael,

I'm sure Mike Salisbury felt like the Betty Markwell and Ed Webb were out to "get him". When you are doing things you don't want anyone to know about, and employees do the fiscally responsible thing and start investigating suspicious activity, you have your lawyer infer that others are in the wrong.

Ed Webb was responsible for the financials at the time, and if I remember correctly- a board member; he did what was legally required of him and the right thing by investigating. (Disclaimer: I have no particular love for Ed Webb- he replaced me doing the Business Case analysis for the museum, but I'm not claiming it was a "coup". Just a frugal business decision to take that work in-house.)

After Mr Salisbury was fired, Ed was the most knowledgeble and qualified person on that very small staff to take over as ED.

Deb