Artwork of John Lennon FRAUD, The Dead Don't Create Artwork

Updated July 16, 2009

New monograph, link to: Posthumous Forgeries, falsely attributed to John L...

NOTE: All footnotes are enclosed with { }.







John Lennon did -not- work in color. This forgery was posthumously colorized.

INTRODUCTION

The Artwork of John Lennon is a -fraud- by his widow Yoko Ono, along with her business associates: Legacy Fine Art Production, Pacific Edge Gallery and others, to cash in at the expense of the unsuspecting consumer and legitimate artists, not to mention John Lennon's true legacy.

Since 1986, Yoko Ono and her business associates have misrepresented more than 35,000 posthumous black-and-white reproductions and colorized & altered fakes for sale to the public at $500 to $8,000 or more each as “lithographs,” “serigraphs,” “woodcuts" and "etchings” ie., original works of visual art, not to mention its' deceptive promotion as the "Artwork of John Lennon."

John Lennon died in 1980.

The dead don't create artwork.

Yoko Ono began this fraud sometime before 1986 when she hired chromists (someone who copies the artist's work) to reproduce John Lennon's black-and-white drawings.

Soon after 1986, Yoko Ono found out these non-disclosed black-and-white reproductions, even when misrepresented as original works of visual art, weren't selling as quickly as she liked, she had them colorized.

Eventually in the late 1990's, Yoko Ono, lost all inhibitions about John Lennon's true legacy and began authorizing not only the colorization of John Lennon's original black-and-white drawings but their alteration into new compositions that John Lennon could not have approved since he was still dead.

To further perpetuate this fraud, Yoko Ono authorized the posthumous application of a counterfeit John Lennon chopmark/signature to each one of these non-disclosed fakes to create the illusion that John Lennon created and approved them, much less signed them.

The dead don't approve or sign anything.

In other words, Yoko Ono and her business associates wants, with or without intent, the public to suspend disbelief or just believe that John Lennon has created, approved and signed more works of visual art in the last 23 years since 1986 than any living artist in the history of man and he’s dead.

How’d the dead do that?

The enclosed monograph documents the facts behind this "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment" which is one legal definition of -fraud-.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. THE DEAD DON’T CREATE ARTWORK

2. THE DEAD DON’T SIGN ANYTHING

3. THE DEAD DON’T NUMBER ANYTHING

4. THE DEAD DON’T COLORIZE ANYTHING

5. THE DEAD DON'T ALTER COMPOSITIONS

6. ALL BUT ONE LITHOGRAPH ARE FAKE

7. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

8. NEW YORK CIVIL CODE

9. FLORIDA STATUTES

10. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

11. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
Fraud and Swindles
Precedent

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES
BIO


Non-disclosed -FAKE- titled “The Hug”
misrepresented as a “serigraph.”
Photograph from the www.artbrokerage.com/
retail/lennon/lennon_thehug.htm






1. THE DEAD DON’T CREATE ARTWORK
On Legacy Fine Arts & Production Inc.’s current 2006 www.johnlennonartwork.com/ shows.html website, it states: “The limited edition artwork in this exhibition consists of lithographs, serigraphs, and copper etchings, hand-reproduced from the original drawings. All reproductions are clearly identified as posthumously created under the control and supervision of Yoko Ono Lennon.”

Lithographs, serigraphs and etchings are original works of visual art created directly by living artists and -reproductions- are copies of original works of art done by someone else other than the artist, particularly if they are dead.

In other words, original works of visual art versus reproductions are not interchangeable, much less the same thing.

Additionally, since the dead obviously can’t create artwork, anything posthumously reproduced would be, at best, a reproduction and not an original work of visual art such as lithographs.

U.S. CUSTOMS
This is confirmed in a May 2006 U.S. Customs Informed Compliance Publication. In part, it states: “original engravings, prints and lithographs - means - wholly executed by hand by the artist - excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process.”{1}

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, -reproduction- is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”

Therefore, since Legacy Fine Arts & Productions Inc. admits John Lennon was dead when this so-called “artwork” was created, under U.S. Customs, these posthumously reproduced images could never be considered “artwork” ie., "original engravings, prints and lithographs” as misleadingly labeled.






















IF JOHN LENNON DIDN’T CREATE THEM, WHO DID?
The majority of these non-disclosed reproductions of John Lennon’s artwork were reproduced by ateliers in Toronto, Canada and imported into the United States.

ATELIER GF
In a September 4, 1998 letter to this author from the Atelier GF “Fine Art Printer” Robert Game (hired by Yoko Ono to create work John Lennon might have created if he had lived longer), the chromist (someone who copies for a living artist or in this case dead) wrote: “In collection of Printer’s Proofs and have many favourites, some for their artistic, some for technical solutions. For the John Lennon images, it was interesting to create the woodblocks for “SAMURAI” or the background for “HE TRIED TO FACE REALITY.”{2}

What would the public think if they found out the so-called “Artwork of John Lennon” ie. “SAMURAI,” they just purchased, was not created by John Lennon but by a chromist Robert Game?


Posthumously applied counterfeit John Lennon “chop-mark” & “embossed signature?”
(Detail from a posthumous non-disclosed -FAKE- titled ‘The Hug”{3})




2. THE DEAD DON’T SIGN ANYTHING.
Another of Yoko Ono’s business associates Pacific Edge Gallery, on their website{4}, states: “In 1986, Yoko Ono, acting for the John Lennon Estate, began releasing limited editions of some of the most meaningful drawings, using only fine art printing techniques - Each limited edition fine art print is authenticated by John Lennon's embossed signature, the embossed printer and publisher's mark, Yoko Ono Lennon's hand-signature, and John's personal chop mark.”

WHAT IS A CHOP-MARK?
Additionally, on Pacific Edge Gallery’s website, it defines a “chop mark” as: “Artists in the Orient sign their works with an individual, patented stamp known as a chop. John Lennon's, which is hand-stamped in red on each edition, was designed by him to read "Like a Cloud, Beautiful Sound."

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SIGNATURE & SIGN?
On page 1387 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -signature- is defined as: “A person’s name or mark written by that person or at the person’s direction.”

On page 1386, in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -sign- is defined as: “to identify (a record) by means of a signature, mark, or other symbol with the intent to authenticate it as an act or agreement of the person identifying it.”

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AUTHENTICATE?
On page 127 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -authenticate- is defined as: “To prove the genuineness of (a thing).”

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF GENUINE?
On page 695 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -genuine- is defined as: “(Of a thing) authentic or real; something that has the quality of what it is purported to be.”

Since John Lennon died tragically in 1980, in 1986 his so-called “embossed signature” and “chop {mark}” could not have been “written by {him} or at {his} direction” to “authenticate” anything.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF COUNTERFEIT?
On page 354, in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -counterfeit- is defined as: “To forge, copy, or imitate (something) without a right to do so and with the purpose of deceiving or defrauding.”

Therefore, would the posthumous application of a so-called “John Lennon’s embossed signature” and “chop {mark},” to non-disclosed fakes, be considered “counterfeit?”


An illegible and alleged “Yoko Ono”
signature and edition number applied
to the non-disclosed -FAKES- titled:
‘The Hug”{5}



3. THE DEAD DON’T NUMBER ANYTHING
On Yoko Ono’s business associate Legacy Production Inc.’s 2005 website{6}, it states: “The limited edition artwork in this exhibition consists of lithographs, serigraphs, and copper etchings, hand-reproduced from the original drawings.”

Additionally, on page one of Yoko Ono’s published 1991 Artwork of John Lennon catalogue, it states: “During 1986 Yoko Ono Lennon decided to share John’s artistic genius with the public by publishing the first series of prints entitled “This is My Story Both Humble and True”, followed in 1988 with “Bag One Continued...” and the “Dakota Days.” On page 25, it states: “The edition size on all the prints is 300, with 25 A.P.’s, with the exception of #35 which has 150 prints with 25 A.P.’s.”

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW - WORK OF VISUAL ART
Under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” is defined as: “a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author.”

Once again, since John Lennon died tragically in 1980, in 1986 this so-called “artwork” could not have been “consecutively numbered by {John Lennon},” much less “bear {his} signature.”

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, if John Lennon did not create them, number them and signed them, they would not be considered a “work of visual art” by him.

TWENTY-FIVE ARTIST PROOFS
As documented earlier, in 1986 Yoko Ono also began offering for sale, as part of these so-called “limited edition{s},” “25” so-called “A.P.s” ie., artist proofs.

WHAT IS AN ARTIST PROOF?
On page 22 of Ralph Mayer’s 1991 The Harper Collins Art Terms & Techniques Dictionary, -artist proof- is defined as: “one of the PROOFS in a LIMITED EDITIONS of ORIGINAL PRINTS. An artist’s proof must bear the artist’s signature or mark and, since the early 20th century, is usually numbered.”

Aside that these so-called “A.P.’s” ie., artist proofs, reproduced after John Lennon’s death, would not have “{John Lennon’s} signature or mark,” how could anyone promote with a straight face that the dead could proof anything?

WHAT IS A FAKE?
On page 617 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -fake- is defined as: “Something that is not what it purports to be.”




Posthumously colorized -FAKE--
with a counterfeit “John Lennon”
signature applied.
Photograph from www.big1059.com/
lennonart.html Two Virgins “Serigraph on Antique Folio 1969”

4. THE DEAD DON’T COLORIZE ANYTHING.
On Yoko Ono’s business associates Legacy Production Inc.’s old 2002 website{7} it states: “The OnoLennon collaborations is still taking place. Yoko has blended her art with John's in the color renditions within this collection. She personally hand-colors maquettes of the original drawings, from which the atelier reproduces the shading for the final editions.”

ENHANCE THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS
On Pacific Edge Gallery’s 2005 www.lennonart.com/lennonas.htm website, it states: “Continuing a collaboration that was at the heart of their relationship throughout their life together, Yoko Ono, a world-renowned artist herself, chose colors that she felt would enhance the meaning of the original drawings.”

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF COLLABORATE?
On page 66 in the Webster New World Pocket Dictionary, -collaborate- is defined as: “to work together.”

WORK OF VISUAL ART EXCLUDES COPIES THAT ARE COLLABORATIVE
The Visual Artist’s Rights Act (H.R. bill 5316), which amended the Copyright Act of 1976, was signed into law on December 1, 1990. In the 1995 The Visual Artist’s Business and Legal Guide compiled and edited by Gregory T. Victoroff, Esq., attorney Katherine M. Thompson specifically addresses issue of “collaboration” in the 1990 Visual Artist’s Rights Act. On page 28, the attorney writes: “The VARA amends the Copyright Act to create a definition for a “work of visual art.” According to Section 602, -excluded are items - that generally exist in multiple copies and are collaborative in nature.”

In other words, the living can’t collaborate with the dead.















5. THE DEAD DON'T ALTER COMPOSITIONS
In 1999, Yoko Ono published a book titled: Real Love - The Drawings for Sean that on the second page, inside the front cover, stated: “Adapted by Al Naclerio from drawings by John Lennon - Copyright @ 1999 by Yoko Ono Lennon.”

ADAPTED IN 1999 BY AL NACLERIO
What does that mean?



















(On left) page 65
In His Own Write & A Spaniard In The Works by John Lennon
published by Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Copyright © 1964, 1965 by John Lennon

(On right) Page 19
John Lennon real love, The Drawings for Sean,
“Adapted by Al Naclerio from drawings by John Lennon, © 1999 by Yoko Ono Lennon.”


CUT, PASTED, COLORIZED IN ALTERED COMPOSITIONS
Sometime before 1999 Yoko Ono authorized Al Naclerio to alter John Lennon's true artistic legacy. Al Naclerio took John Lennon’s original 1964 black-and-white drawings and cut, pasted and colorized into new altered compositions with a counterfeit titles applied, for example: “a herd moving" along with counterfeit John Lennon chop-mark/signatures posthumously applied to create the illusion he created it, signed and titled it, much less approved it.

Remember, John Lennon died 19 years earlier in 1980.

The dead don't create artwork.

Yet, in the INTRODUCTION for this 1999 John Lennon real love The Drawings for Sean book, Yoko Ono writes: “I began finding John and Sean drawing together. John would draw something and explain to Sean what it was. - John would ask Sean what he thought John was drawing. Sean would say, ‘That’s a horsey,”’ and that would become the title of John’s drawing.”

One would have to suspend disbelief to an extreme to accept these misleading statements because some of these John Lennon black-and-white drawings were published in John Lennon's 1964 In His Own Write/Spaniard In His Own Words books some two years before he met Yoko Ono in 1966 and some twelve years before even his son Sean was born in 1976.

Once again, the dead don't create artwork.

LEGACY FINE ART & PRODUCTIONS
Yet, this misrepresentation of John Lennon’s true legacy is perpetuated by Yoko Ono’ business associate Legacy Fine Arts & Productions on their www.johnlennonartwork.com/ popup_reallove.html website. Under the subtitle: “Real Love - The Pieces,” one of which is titled: “A herd moving,” it states: “These drawings were done in the last years of John’s life, with and for his son Sean, to teach him about life and to give him an appreciation for art.”

PACIFIC EDGE GALLERY
Additionally, this misrepresentation of John Lennon’s true legacy is also perpetuated by another of Yoko Ono’s business associates Pacific Edge Gallery on their www.lennonart.com/newrel.htm website. In part, it states: “‘Real Love’ Drawings for Sean {are} twenty-two new editions from John Lennon's new book of drawings released on Random House in June. These unique playful and colorful drawings were drawn for John's son, Sean, to share with him the fun of drawing and creating.”


(On left) page 131
In His Own Write & & A Spaniard In The Works by John Lennon
published by Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Copyright © 1964, 1965 by John Lennon

(On right) page 6
John Lennon real love, The Drawings for Sean
Adapted by Al Naclerio from drawings by John Lennon
Copyright @ 1999 by Yoko Ono Lennon.”



So, what was the real motivation behind the posthumous colorization and non-disclosed alterations of John Lennon’s black and white drawings into new compositions ?

YOKO ONO CRITICIZED FOR ADDING COLOR
In the July 16, 1997 Detroit News “in loving color: Lennon art with an Ono flair -- comes to Ann Arbor” article by Art Critic Joy Hakanson Colby, Yoko Ono describes the actual events that led to the colorizing of the so-called John Lennon “lithographs” and “screenprints.” It first quotes Yoko as stating: “Yes, I’ve been criticized for adding color to John’s black-and-white drawings,” she acknowledges, “but when I explain why it happened, people usually understand.”

Did Yoko Ono really plan all along that the posthumous colorizing of John Lennon’s black-and-white drawings to “enhance the meaning of the original drawings?”

COLORIZING LENNON’S DRAWINGS WOULD COMMAND ATTENTION
The article continues: “Ono has been touring Lennon’s lithographs and screenprints for the last 10 years, making the work available to the public that reveres him as a musician and raising money for charitable causes. Bookings are handled by a team of organizers who want to give the work as much visibility as possible. When a gallery wanted to display one of Lennon’s prints in the window to advertise the show inside, it was determined that the little black-and-white line drawing was too slight to command attention. Ono was informed that color would achieve the desired effect.”

YOKO ONO A PURIST UP TILL 1986?
Yoko Ono is quoted as stating: “I was shocked when they showed me a drawing that had been colored in terrible, screaming hues. I told them what they had done was sacrilege,” Ono recalls. - Up to that point I had been a purist. But I figured if some of John’s drawings needed color, I’d do it myself.”

In other words, the real motivation for the posthumous colorization of reproductions of John Lennon’s black-and-white drawings was because they couldn’t sell them. The bologna about “enhancing {their} meaning” is just part of a larger cover-up to sell these non-disclosed fakes at $500 to $8,000 or more each to the unsuspecting public.

As for the posthumous alteration and colorization of John Lennon's black-and-white drawings into new compositions and subsequent misrepresentation of those fakes as the "Artwork of John Lennon."


“1970 LENNON BAG ONE
SHOW BOOK”{8}
www.strawberrywalrus.com/
johnyoko.html





6. ALL BUT ONE LITHOGRAPH ARE FAKE.
John Lennon only created one lithograph in his life (1969) known as the “frontspiece."{9} All other so-called “Bag One” lithographs made during his lifetime were actually non-disclosed reproduction/posters reproduced by the Curwin Studios in England.

ANTHONY FAWCETT, PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO JOHN LENNON
This is confirmed in Anthony Fawcett’s published 1976 book titled: One Day At A Time. The former art critic Anthony Fawcett worked full time as a personal assistant to John Lennon and Yoko Ono, “running their office, organizing their daily schedules, cataloging their writings and films”{10} from early 1969 till May 1970. The following excerpts, from his book, document John Lennon only created one lithograph in his life.

JOHN LENNON DRAWINGS REPRODUCED
On page 164, the Anthony Fawcett writes: “John would be able to draw or paint in his usual manner. The images could later be transferred from the paper onto sensitized zinc plates by means of an advanced technical process, and the lithographs printed in the traditional way.”

As noted earlier, under U.S. Customs regulations, a lithograph must be “wholly executed by the artist” and “excluding any mechanical and photomechanical process.”

Therefore, the transfer of John Lennon’s original drawings and paintings to “sensitized zinc plates” and the subsequent printing would be reproductions and not “lithographs” as, at best, misunderstood by Anthony Fawcett.

JOHN LENNON CREATES ONE LITHOGRAPH IN HIS LIFETIME
This is additionally confirmed, on page 171, when Anthony Fawcett writes: “John became more involved, in his on and off way, and came to visit Curwen Studio to see the printing process in action. While there, he created the image for the frontispiece, a simple sketch of himself crouched on the ground holding Yoko, which he drew directly onto a zinc plate.”

YOKO ONO CONFIRMS LENNON ONLY CREATED ONE LITHOGRAPH
This is confirmed by Yoko Ono in the January 11 -January 17, 1996 Tucson Weekly published “Matisse, Picasso --And Lennon?”{11} article by Margaret Regan. In the article, the reporter wrote: “Lennon himself made only one lithograph in his life that she knows of, Ono says.”

Therefore, in 1969, John Lennon, for “forty pounds each or five hundred and fifty pounds each for set,”{12} misrepresented over 3,000 reproductions of his drawings as “lithographs.”

Some thirty-six years later, these non-disclosed reproductions{13}, are still being misrepresented as “John Lennon lithographs” by Yoko Ono and her business associates Legacy Production Inc. and Pacific Edge Gallery.

7. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
In the State of California under California Civil Code 1741-1745, it states: “California law provides for disclosure in writing of information concerning - whether the multiple is a reproduction” {when} “offered for sale or sold at wholesale or retail for one hundred dollars ($100) or more, exclusive of any frame.”

The potential penalties for violation of California Civil Code statutes may include but not limited to “refund,” “interest,” “treble damages,” “court costs,” “expert witness fees,” “attorney fees” and potential $1,000 fine per occurrence.

Before Legacy Productions Inc. a.k.a. Legacy Fine Arts & Productions Inc. move to West Palm Beach, Florida{14} in 2005, they operated this so-called “Artwork of John Lennon” exhibit out of the following location: “632 Third Street - Santa Rosa, California 95404.”

Another of Yoko Ono's business associate Pacific Edge Gallery is located at 540 S. Coast Highway #112, Laguna Beach, California 92651 with the (949) 494-0491 telephone number and website: www.pacificedgegallery.com .

8. NEW YORK CIVIL CODE
Under New York Civil Code 15.01 (2.) states: “Article fifteen of the New York arts and cultural affairs law provides for disclosure in writing of certain information concerning multiples of prints and photographs when sold for more than one hundred dollars ($100) - whether the multiple is a reproduction.”

The penalties for violation of New York Civil Code statutes under 15.15 may include but not limited to “refund,” “treble damages,” “court costs,” “expert witness fees,” “attorney fees” and not to mention potential civil fines.

In the State of New York under New York Civil Code 11.01, -counterfeit- is defined as: “a work of fine art or multiple made, altered or copied, with or without intent to deceive, in such a manner that it appears or is claimed to have an authorship which it does not in fact possess.”

Yoko Ono’s company Bag One Arts Inc. is located at 110 West 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-6402 with the (212) 595-5537 telephone number.

Therefore, the question is: “Are Yoko Ono and her business associates “alter{ing}” the non-disclosed reproductions, in the so-called -Artwork of John Lennon-, “in such a manner that it appears or is claimed to have an authorship which it does not in fact possess?”

9. FLORIDA STATUTES
Under Florida Statutes 817.034 “Florida Communications Fraud Act” under “DEFINITIONS” (3d), it states: "Scheme to defraud" means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.”

The potential penalties for such conduct, under ”OFFENSES “(4), states: “(a) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and obtains property thereby is guilty of organized fraud, punishable as follows: 1. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $50,000 or more, the violator is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 2. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $50,000, the violator is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 3. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of less than $20,000, the violator is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”

Would the sale of non-disclosed reproductions, in the State of Florida and misrepresented as the “Artwork of John Lennon for $500 to $8,000 or more each,” be considered a "scheme to defraud?"

Yoko Ono's business associate Legacy Fine Arts & Productions is located at 330 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 with a (561) 651-1156 telephone number and website: www.johnlennonartwork.com .

10. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
In September 1998 Art World News trade magazine, the attorney Paul Winick (partner in the New York office of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges), who specializes in intellectual property law, litigation and represents galleries, publishers and artists, wrote the article Certificates of Authenticity: Dealer Liability.

In his article he explains the application of the Uniform Commercial Code as it applies to the “sales of most forms of visual art.” The author writes: “UCC express warranty arises from two sources: The description of the goods given by the seller, and the seller statements made to induce the sale.” Those statements are said to become part of the “basis of the bargain” made between buyer and seller and, therefore, a basis for legal action if the description or statements turn out later to have been false.”

“Warranties need not depend on the sale document and can arise in statements made in advertisements or catalogues, so long as the buyer relied on those statements in formulating the bargain with the seller.”

The author continues by writing: “Warranties are applicable regardless of fault or intent. It is no defense that the seller did not mean to make a misstatement, or that he thought the misstatement to be true. If the goods (the artwork) do not conform to the promise made (the warranty), the seller is liable, whether or not he knew it to be true.”

When it comes to “disclaimers”, Paul Winick writes: “Disclaimers are not viewed favorably by courts and, unless there is some way to reconcile the disclaimer and the representation, the disclaimer is disregarded and the representation is given effect.”

REPRESENTATION DOES NOT MATCH DISCLOSURE
Yoko Ono and her business associate Legacy Production Inc.’s “representation,” of their so-called “Artwork of John Lennon,” does not match their “disclosure” on their website.

On Legacy Production Inc.’s 2006 website, it states: “The limited edition artwork in this exhibition consists of lithographs, serigraphs, and copper etchings, hand-reproduced from the original drawings. All reproductions are clearly identified as posthumously created under the control and supervision of Yoko Ono Lennon.”

For the Yoko Ono and her business associate Legacy Production Inc. to make a -representation- in the title of this exhibit “artwork” then make the -disclosure- hidden in the small print of their website that in reality the so-called “artwork” was posthumous “reproductions,” as if these concepts were interchangeable, would be, at best, a -non-sequitur-{15}.

WHAT IS FRAUD?
On page 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -fraud- is defined as: “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.”

Would a Yoko Ono and her business associates Legacy Production Inc. and Pacific Edge Gallery misrepresentation a posthumous fakes as “artwork” be potentially committing “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment?”

11. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
In Section 1341, Fraud and Swindles of the UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE, it states: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”

PRECEDENT
In the March 17, 2004 News-10-Now’s “US Attorney’s Office investigates art fraud” story by Carmen Grant (news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID= 12317&SecID=83), Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Fletcher is quoted as stating: “What we found is that Anthony Marone and William Yager conspired with one another, since at least as far back as 1999, to post on ebay for auction works of art that they represented to be original by original famous artists, and what they actually sold was counterfeit works of art. By doing that they committed several federal offenses including conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud.”

Would Yoko Ono’s and her business associates Legacy Production Inc.’s a.k.a Legacy Fine Arts & Productions and Pacific Edge Gallery’s promotion and sale of non-disclosed reproductions as the “Artwork of John Lennon” through their websites be considered “wire fraud?”

CONCLUSION
What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of reproductions as -reproductions- by the Yoko Ono, her business associates Legacy Production Inc. a.k.a. Legacy Fine Arts & Productions, Pacific Edge Gallery and others. If the Yoko Ono and all other participants, in this fraud, will give full and honest disclosure to these chromist-made (someone hired to create an image for the artist) and/or photo-mechanical reproductions as: “reproductions,” it would allow the public to give informed consent if they chose to purchase one of these -reproductions-.

But if these reproductions are not disclosed as -reproductions or the reproductions are not even direct reproductions of the artist’s original artwork because they have been posthumously colorized and altered with counterfeit signature/chop-marks posthumously applied to create the illusion the artist created them, much less approved them, then they become “something that is not what it purports to be” which is one legal definition of -fake-.

The reputations and legacy of living and past artists, present and future art gallery patrons and the art-buying public deserve the re-establishment of the obvious; that the living presence and participation of the artist to once again be required, as it always should have been, to create the piece of art attributable to the artist if indeed it is attributed to them, much less purported to have been signed by them.

FOOTNOTES:
1. Works of Art, Collector’s Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property * An Informed Compliance Publication * U.S. Customs May 2006 “The expression “original engravings, prints and lithographs” means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process.”

2. ROBERT GAME . SUSAN FARQUHAR . FINE ART PRINTERS 512 LANSDOWNE AVENUE TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M6H 3Y3 TEL/FAX 416 588-7399

3. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20148&item=3774421395 &rd=1

4. www.lennon art.com/lennonas.htm Pacific Edge Gallery

5.http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20148&item=3774421395&rd=1

6. www.johnlennonartwork.com/shows.html

7. www.johnlennonartwork.com/frame.html Legacy Production Inc’s old 2002 website

8. Original 8 1/2"x11", 20 page booklet for the February 7 through February 28, 1970 show held at the Lee Nordness Galleries in New York. Each lithograph is shown (one per page). This was the set that John gave to Yoko after their honeymoon. The lithographs were issued in a limited edition of just 300 each. Shows some age yellowing around the edges. $40.00 +shipping”

9. Page 171, Anthony Fawcett’s 1976 One Day At A Time (ISBN 0-8021-4333-4 Copyright © by Anthony Fawcett)

10. Page 11 Introduction Anthony Fawcett’s 1976 One Day At A Time (ISBN 0-8021-4333-4 Copyright © by Anthony Fawcett)

11. www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/01-11-96/review1.htm

12. page 172 One Day At A Time by Anthony Fawcett ISBN 0-394-17754-1

13. “BAG ONE 1969 -Bag One, Honeymoon, I Do, Exchange of Rings, John & Yoko, Erotic #1, Erotic #2, Erotic #3, Erotic #4, Erotic #5, Erotic #6, Erotic #7, Erotic #8” (Legacy Production Inc.’s www.johnlennonartwork.com/price.html website)

14. Legacy Fine Arts & Productions 330 Clematis St. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 651-1156

15. On page 1080 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, “non-sequitur” is defined as: “An inference or conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises.”

PRINCIPALS:
Yoko Ono, c/o Bag One Arts, 110 West 79th Street, New York, New York 10024 - (212) 595-5537

Legacy Fine Arts & Productions, 330 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - (561) 651-1156
www.johnlennonartwork.com

Pacific Edge Gallery, 540 S. Coast Highway #112, Laguna Beach, California 92651 - (949) 494-0491
www.pacificedgegallery.com