THE REAL THING?, Artletic & Fine Art Registry’s AVARICE

UPDATED: August 30, 2008 with email correspondence, -below monograph-, to and from Fine Art Registry's Theresa Franks

NOTE: Footnotes enclosed with [FN ].



























“New York' s Babe Ruth
Taking Advanced Orders Now~ Babe Ruth Limited Edition Exclusive by Bruce Stark. Artletics is proudly introduces a Limited Edition Series commemorating Yankee Stadium’s final season by award- winning artist Bruce Stark, was a two-time winner of the National Cartoonist’s Rueben Category for “Best Sports Cartoonists of the Year” (1966, 1975) has been in retirement for 25 years from the New York Daily News. This is Mr. Stark’s first editorial style cartoon since his retirement and Artletics is honored to include the work of Bruce Stark as apart of our collection.
Black and White,Mixed Media,Giclee`
Item#:100-153-12-8-LE
16" x 20" Limited Edition- $395.00”
http://www.artletics.com/view.php?proid=874

The “Limited Edition Exclusive by Bruce Stark” titled New York’s Babe Ruth, being offered for sale as a "Black and White, Mixed Media, Giclee" at $395 each on Artletic’s website[FN 1], are actually -non-disclosed- reproduction/posters. Would you pay that much for a poster?

How can it be proven these are non-disclosed reproduction/posters?

GICLEE - HIGH QUALITY RESOLUTION SCANS 
This devastating fact is backhandedly confirmed in the small print (no pun intended) on the Artletic’s website itself, under the subtitle: “Giclee’ Care” (click on it and new webpage opens). In part, it states: “A Giclee print is an elevation in printmaking technology. The images are generated from high-quality resolution scans and printing with archival quality inks onto various substrates including canvas, fine art and photo-base papers.”[FN 2]

Any “images {that} are generated from high-quality resolution scans and print[ed]”[FN 3] would be -reproductions-.

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

This factual perspective is confirmed by U.S. Copyright Law § 101. Definitions which in part states: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as [an] - art reproduction."[FN 4]

Under U.S. Copyright Law § 106A, the “Right of Attribution - shall not apply to a reproduction.”[FN 5]

Additionally, under § 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works, it states: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work."[FN 6]

Which means in layperson terms, the artist owns their original artwork and the printer would own all the derivatives ie., reproductions they were authorized to reproduced from that artwork and would only be contractually obligated to give the artist the number of reproductions they paid for. In other words, the artist pays for 100, the artist gets 100.

The printer would not be contractually obligated to give the artist any plates, negatives, digital files and the like they manufactured to use to reproduce the artist's image, not to mention the overruns that most likely exist. That means, since the printer owns the derivative rights to the derivatives they reproduced, they could reproduce more reproductions, without the knowledge or permission of the artist.

In other words, if an artist doesn't know their rights, they have none, not to mention a so-called "limited edition."

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS

This perspective is confirmed by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. in their 21st-century published Printing Trade Customs, which, in part, states: “6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.”[FN 7]

Now of course the artist may have asked the printer to reassign those reproduction rights incurred under U.S. Copyright Law by the printer back to the artist -in writing- as a condition for doing business with them. Most printers would gladly do it if asked, they just want the business. Of course, if the artist did get those reproductions rights reassigned back to them -in writing- and notarized from the printer, it would be a written admission by the artist they knew from the very beginning they were at best reproductions.

http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-appreciation/artletics-sports-collecting.php

 
ART, INSPIRATION AND INTEGRITY

Which leads to Fine Art Registry’s published August 22, 2008 “Art, Inspiration and Integrity” article by FAR’s Dave Phillips. In part, the author wrote: “One of the most important aspects of Artletics, which conclusively sets it apart from any other publisher, or producer of sports memorabilia or art, is in the area of authenticity."[FN 8]

AUTHENTICATION

On page 127 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -authentication- is defined as: "Broadly, the act of proving that something (as a document) is true or geniune, esp. so that it may be admitted as evidence."[FN 9]

Fortunately, despite self interest and monetary considerations by Fine Art Registry and Artletic’s Managing Partner & Creative Director Joe Cioffi, artwork and reproductions are not interchangeable, much less the same.

THE REAL THING
So, what is the public to think when, in this article, Fine Art Registry’s Dave Phillips wrote: "Artletics has formed a partnership with Fine Art Registry and will be tagging {$2.25 each} and registering each Limited Edition Exclusive print before it is shipped. - This will protect the edition from being forged or faked in any way and owners will be secure that they have the real thing?”[FN 10]

CONCLUSION 
In closing, if the above is an example on how Fine Art Registry and Artletic’s Managing Partner & Creative Director Joe Cioffi will protect the real thing, who will protect the public from them? 



Also link to:

• FINE ART REGISTRY, a Contradiction in Terms, Promi...
• Gamut Control, Whose Reproductions Are They?

FOOTNOTES:
1.  http://www.artletics.com/view.php?proid=874

2.  http://www.artletics.com/index.php?id=24&page=Giclee'_Care 

3.  http://www.artletics.com/index.php?id=24&page=Giclee'_Care

4.  www. copyright.gov

5. Ibid

6. Ibid

7. www.svcs.k12.in.us/svhs/graphicarts/Notes/Printing%20Trade%20Customs.pdf

8. http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-appreciation/artletics-sports-collecting.php

9. Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864

10. http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-appreciation/artletics-sports-collecting.php


ADDENDUM:
On page 93 of Randon House College Dictionary, -avarice- is defined as an: "insatiable greed for riches, inordinate desire to gain and hoard wealth." ISBN 0-394-43500-1




CORRESPONDENCE (to FAR's Theresa Franks):

August 27, 2008

Theresa Franks
Fine Art Registry®
Global Fine Art Registry, LLC.
3434 West Greenway Road, #200
Phoenix, AZ 85053
602-595-2227

Note: Footnotes are enclosed with { }.

Dear Ms. Franks:

Your partner Jeff Cioffi’s Artletics’ website is selling non-disclosed reproductions.

As you recall, you called me last night concerning my posting “The Real Thing?, Artletics and Fine Art Registry’s Avarice{1}” monograph on my blog. In that telephone conversation, I stated the so-called Bruce Stark “New York’s Babe Ruth” Limited Edition Giclees were nothing more than -reproductions-.

JOE CIOFFI JUST STARTING OUT
You replied: “I agree with the majority of what you say,” but then you tried to excuse your business partner’s unethical practice and profit at the consumer’s expense because you state: “{Joe Cioffi} has worked his butt off,” “he is just starting out” and “{I} should give him my understanding.”

What I do understand is that you, Fine Art Registry Theresa Franks, just asked me to undermine everything I practice as an artist and document as a scholar so you and your business partner Joe Cioffi can cash-in selling non-disclosed reproductions to the unsuspecting public and perpetuate misconceptions and misrepresentation in the marketplace against legitimate artists, not to mention those who sell fully disclosed reproductions as reproductions.

JOE CIOFFI IN BUSINESS FOR FIVE YEARS
As for Joe Cioffi “just starting out,” that is contradicted by your business partner’s own words, in an August 20, 2008 interview by Chris Tucci posted on the The Sports Artwork Forum blog. In part, Mr. Cioffi is quoted stating: “After being in business for five years. - the creation and growth for an online brand, like Artletics.”{2}

GICLEES THEY REPRODUCE BEAUTIFULLY
Additionally, in this interview, your business partner Joe Cioffi is quoted stating: “the state of the art in regards to type of print is Giclees. They reproduce beautifully and they last a lifetime.”{3}

Yet, despite Joe Cioffi’s admission giclees are reproductions, he does not disclose those reproductions as reproductions that he sells up to $395 or more, on his Artletics website{4}.

So, late yesterday afternoon Joe Cioffi called me concerning my posting “The Real Thing?, Artletics and Fine Art Registry’s Avarice” monograph on my blog. Throughout that conversation, I informed -repeatedly- to Mr. Cioffi that reproductions he sells must be disclosed as -reproductions-. Joe Cioffi’s response to that statement was, in part, to try to convince me that the memorabilia market was different.

LACK OF CONNOISSEURSHIP
Unfortunately, Joe Cioffi, despite his professed art background, exposed his lack of connoisseurship{5} when he asked me repeatedly how I reproduce my lithographs. The only problem, for Mr. Cioffi, lithographs are original works of visual art created by an artist and would -never- be trivialized as a reproduction. That perspective is confirmed by U.S. Customs regulations{6}, U.S. Copyright Law{7} and statutory law{8} and established published industry definitions{9} by those who have transparent agendas.

WE DON’T ENFORCE
Since Fine Art Registry has partnered with Joe Cioffi and his Artletics company, I asked why FAR and you have not informed him to disclose reproductions as reproductions. You replied: “What it boils down to, we don’t enforce.”

NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY
Later, when I again repeated same issue of disclosing reproductions as reproductions, you stated: “I know what is right but it’s not my responsibility.I don’t advise. - I’ll help them.”

How can Fine Art Registry and you be partners, in promotion and profit, with Joe Cioffi and his Artletics website{10} and not, in part, be responsible?

LIMITED EDITION OR LIMITED DISCLOSURE
Now, throughout my telephone conversation yesterday with Joe Cioffi, he kept repeating that giclees, offered for sale on his website, were limited editions and investments. So, I asked him whether he, the artist Bruce Sparks or anyone from Fine Art Registry witnessed the printing of the edition of 750 so-called giclees titled “New York’s Babe Ruth?”

Joe Cioffi said: -no-.

I immediately asked Joe Cioffi: how does anyone know there weren’t more reproduced than 750? He replied he never trusted an edition was limited and that one or more extras could have been printed.

Yet, under the subtitle “Artletics Difference in Authenticity” on Joe Cioffi’s Artletics website, it states: “Each Artletics Limited Edition piece comes hand numbered and signed by the artist. On the bottom left hand corner of your piece you get the security of FAR registration number to ensure your piece is authentic.”{11}

So, are we to suspend disbelief or just believe something is limited when those who promote it as such did not witness it’s printing, much less the security of the digital file used to reproduce it?

Then to add insult to injury, Fine Art Registry tagging system is promoted by Fine Art Registry to the public as being for works of art with no mention of reproductions you register also.

FINE ART OR -REPRODUCTION- REGISTRY TAG
This skewed perspective is confirmed in Fine Art Registry published June 20, 2006 “The Fine Art Registry™ Tag, Not Just a Pretty Label” article by David Charles posted on your website, it states: “the tag also serves as an incontrovertible identifier by its absence. A work of art presented as an original which was in fact a forgery would be identified as such by the lack of a tag on work of art that would be recorded in the FAR registry by an artist who was known to have all his or her work registered. Similarly if a stolen piece had the tag removed completely by destroying the canvas or the matte or wherever the tag is applied.”{12}

How can a Fine Art Registry tag be an “incontrovertible identifier by its absence,” if FAR tagged reproductions were never identified as a reproductions to begin with?

GICLEES ARE REPRODUCTION/POSTERS
Also, several times, in the late afternoon telephone conversation with Artletics Joe Cioffi, he asked would I remove the reference in my blog to the 750 Bruce Stark giclees as “reproduction/posters.” He told me that they were not posters. I informed him these giclees he is selling are reproductions, aside the subjective argument of quality, no different than posters reproduced.

Additionally, he asked if he would call them reproductions, would I remove my blog or remove what he felt were offensive references toward one of his artists {Bruce Sparks).

I told him I would commend those who would give full and honest disclosure to reproductions as reproductions.

ABSOLUTELY NOT
Then finally at the end of our telephone conversation, Joe Cioffi asked whether I would consider consulting for him and that he would pay me. I told him absolutely not. I do not accept money because it could be characterized as coloring my scholarship.

Which is ironically very much how you ended our telephone conversation yesterday evening. Aside profusely complementing me throughout our telephone conversation, with a line or two expressing how “upsetting” my monograph was, you asked me to: 1) join your organization, 2) sit on committees you would organize, 3) help FAR explain what lithographs are, 4) help you write legislation and 5) write articles (telling me you pay for them) for FAR to post on your website.

Additionally, you wished I had just called or emailed you if I had any questions or concerns about Fine Art Registry. You said: “{I} was wrong in this case” and “unfair to {Joe Cioffi} when I posted “The Real Thing?, Artletics and Fine Art Registry’s Avarice” monograph on my blog.

In closing, you said: “you wanted to education the consumer” and “so many people need help who don’t get it.” On that point, we agree. Hence, the posting “The Real Thing?, Artletics and Fine Art Registry’s Avarice” monograph on my blog.

I hope the next time I may come across Fine Art Registry and Artletics’ websites, full and honest disclosure of reproductions as reproductions will be embraced.

For the sake of the public and their informed consent, fellow artists and those who sell fully disclosed reproductions, I hope you both accomplish that goal.

Respectfully,

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author
P.O. Box 686
Fernandina Beach, Florida 32035
gwarseneau@hotmail.com
garyarseneau.blogspot.com
garyarseneau.com


FOOTNOTES:
1. http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com

2. http://www.sportsartwork.net/2008/08/artletics.html

3. Ibid

4. http://www.artletics.com/view.php?proid=874

5. In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, “connoisseurship” is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”

6. U.S. Customs’ “April 2004 Works of Art, Collector's Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property - An Informed Compliance Publication. ” In part, it states: "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 hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."

7. www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

8. California Civil Code 1738-1745

9. 1965 A GUIDE TO THE COLLECTING AND CARE OF ORIGINAL PRINTS sponsored by the The Print Council of America and authored by Carl Zigrosser and Christa M. Gaehde. On page 98, the authors wrote: “An original print is a work of art, the general requirements of which are: 1. The artist alone has created the master image in or upon the plate, stone, wood block or other material, for the purpose of creating the print. 2. The print is made from the said material, by the artist or pursuant to his directions. 3. The finished print is approved by the artist.” http://www.printdealers.com/learn.cfm

10. http://www.artletics.com/index.php?id=33&page=Certificates_of_Authenticity

11. Ibid

12. http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/charles_david/tag_pretty_label_06-20-2006.php


CORRESPONDENCE (from FAR's Theresa Franks):

RE: Connoissurship
From: Fine Art Registry (admin@fineartregistry.com)
Sent: Fri 8/29/08 1:46PM
To: -Gary Arseneau-


You can lead a horse to water...

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- is subsituted for email address.]

29 non-disclosed FAKE RODINS coming to the Las Cruces Museum of Art

Updated on August 31, 2008 with email correspondence, -below monograph-, to Las Cruces Museum of Art's Museum Manager Lisa Pugh




















This so-called "Auguste Rodin - Monumental Head of St. John the Baptist" is one of the 29 posthumous non-disclosed -fake- Auguste Rodins, all with counterfeit "A. Rodin" or "Rodin" signatures applied, coming to the Las Cruces Museum of Art on September 5, 2008 in the titled exhibition: Rodin, In His Own Words, Selections from the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation.

What proof is there that this so-called "Monumental Head of St. John the Baptist," listed above as "Cast in 1985" by the Godard foundry, is a posthumous fake with a counterfeit "A Rodin" signature?

However it may be argued by those with self-interest, Auguste Rodin died in 1917 and the dead don't sculpt, much less sign anything.

CONCLUSION

To learn more about one of the largest 2oth to 21st-century art frauds and the violation of Auguste Rodin’s 1916 Will by a corrupt Musee Rodin who: 1) does not reproduce in bronze from Auguste Rodin’s original plasters, 2) posthumously applies counterfeit “Rodin” or “A. Rodin” signatures to their second-generation-removed -FAKES-, 3) does not limit editions to twelve as promoted, 4) has allowed the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation to pick the color/patina of a bronze they in turn promote as an original Auguste Rodin and 5) falsely attributes life-casts and altered work to Auguste Rodin, link to:

Rodin: In His Own Words FRAUD, the Iris & B. Geral...

PRINCIPALS:
Lisa Pugh
Museum Manager
Las Cruces Museum of Art
491 N Main
Las Cruces, NM 88001
(575) 541-2137
lpugh@las-cruces.org
www.las-cruces.org

Judith Sobol
Director
Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 435
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 277-4600
jsobol@ibgcf.org
www.cantorfoundation.org

CORRESPONDENCE:
August 23, 2008

Lisa Pugh
Museum Manager
Las Cruces Museum of Art
491 N Main
Las Cruces, NM 88001
(575) 541-2137
lpugh@las-cruces.org
www.las-cruces.org

Note: Footnotes are enclosed with { }.

Dear Ms. Pugh:

The Las Cruces Museum of Art’s upcoming “Rodin: In His Own Words” exhibition is a -fraud-. 29 of the 35 non-disclosed reproductions in this exhibition are outright -fakes- with counterfeit signatures posthumously applied between 1925 and 1995.

Auguste Rodin died in 1917.

Yet, the Las Cruces Museum of Art’s promotional material online promotes it as: “35 bronze sculptures by Auguste Rodin {that} explores the range of Rodin’s artistic legacy,”{1} not to mention the museum’s published Summer 2008 newsletter promoting them as: “original - either cast in bronze during Rodin’s lifetime or cast posthumously according to his explicit wishes and instructions.”{2}

Aside whether you are asking the public to suspend disbelief or just believe, the dead don’t sculpt and one legal definition of “legacy” is: “a gift by will, esp. of personal property.”{3}

In Auguste Rodin’s 1916 Will, he gave, the State of France, “the reproduction rights to objects given by him.”{4}

Since Auguste Rodin and the State of France understood they were reproductions in 1916, why are the 6 possible lifetime reproductions in this exhibition, not to mention the 29 non-disclosed posthumous fakes, fully disclosed at best as “reproductions” in 2008?

Just in case you and/or your colleagues’ believe that these 29 non-disclosed fakes adhere to French Law, Las Cruces Museum of Art is not in France and New Mexico is not a French province.

As for legitimate French laws, the March 3, 1981 French decree no. 81.255, Article 9, in part, states: “All facsimiles, casts of casts, copies, or other reproductions of an original work of art as set out in Article 71 of Appendix III of the General Code of Taxes, executed after the date of effectiveness of the present decree, must carry in a visible and indelible manner the notation ‘Reproduction’.”{5}

Now, under U.S. Copyright Law, the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to reproductions.”{6}

Finally, and respectfully, this is a defining moment for you and your colleagues at the Las Cruces Museum of Art. I hope you and you colleagues will practice some connoisseurship and courage and give full and honest disclosure to these contentious issues of authenticity so the public can possibly give -informed consent-{7} on whether they would like to voluntarily attend this exhibition.

In the interest of connoisseurship, here are two links to assist you and your colleagues.

First, to read “29 non-disclosed FAKE RODINS at the Las Cruces Museum of Art,” link to:

29 non-disclosed FAKE RODINS coming to the Las Cru...

Second, to read “Rodin: In His Own Words FRAUD, the Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Foundation's touring road show of 29 non-disclosed FAKES,” link to:

Rodin: In His Own Words FRAUD, the Iris & B. Geral...

In closing, if I can be of any further assistance to help the Las Cruces Museum of Art and its’ staff achieve that goal of full and honest disclosure, much less answer any questions you and you colleagues may have, please contact me.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author
Fernandina Beach, Florida
gwarseneau{at}hotmail.com (email)
garyarseneau.blogspot.com (blog)
garyarseneau.com (website)

FOOTNOTES:
1) http://www.las-cruces.org/public-services/museums/rodin/default_rodin.html

2) http://www.las-cruces.org/public-services/museums/default.shtm

3) p. 901, Seventh Edition Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

4) Auguste Rodin’s 1916 Will, in part, stated: “notwithstanding the transfer of artistic ownership authorized to the State of M. Rodin, the latter expressly reserves for himself the enjoyment, during his life, of the reproduction rights of those objects given by him.” (Page 285 in the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent’s “Observations on Rodin and His Founders” essay, published in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)

5) P. 281, Jean Chatelain’s “Original in Sculpture,” 1981 Rodin Rediscovered ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)

6) “§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37 (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art — (1) shall have the right — (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction...”

7) “Agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or purpose, esp. given voluntarily by a competent person.” p. 300, Seventh Edition Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

Art of John Lennon -forgeries- at the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum

UPDATED: October 24, 2010

LINK OF INTEREST: 

• http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2016/03/authentic-lifetime-drawing-by-john.html

Note: Footnotes are enclosed as [FN].

54. WATCH THE HOLES, YOKO 1979 Sold-Out Edition

"A very loving drawing - John holding Yoko's hand, helping, guiding her throught the pitfalls of life. Always there for her. 'watching out' for her." (Page 24, John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery 540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651- 2479 - www.lennonart.com Page 72, 12. "Watch The Holes Yoko" listed under the subtitle Techniques as: Serigraphy)

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

The Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum's August 26, 2008 to September 1, 2008 Coming Together through the art of John Lennon exhibition, loaned at the time by an anonymous collector, contained at least four non-disclosed posthumous (after 1986) -forgeries-.

John Lennon died in 1980. The dead don't create art.

Those four non-disclosed posthumous (after 1986) forgeries were misrepresented, with or without intent, by the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum as part of "an amazing collection of original artwork done by the musician John Lennon"[FN 1] and "a number of lithographs and rare Beatles collectibles."[FN 2]

Yet, almost two calendar years later, this same anonymous collector a.k.a. David Petersen is now suing for $191,000 a gallery who he alleges sold him phony John Lennon memorabilia that was a couple years earlier exhibited as "original artwork" by the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum.

This monograph updates these contentious issues of authenticity.
CHECKLIST OF POSTHUMOUS FORGERIES


54. WATCH THE HOLES, YOKO 1979 Sold-Out Edition

"A very loving drawing - John holding Yoko's hand, helping, guiding her throught the pitfalls of life. Always there for her. 'watching out' for her." Page 24, John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery 540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651- 2479 - www.lennonart.com On page 72, 12. "Watch The Holes Yoko" is listed under the subtitle: Techniques as: Serigraphy), Photo Source: Courtesy of Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum/AP August 13, 2008 "Exhibit of John Lennon's Artwork to Open in Waukesha"
1 OF 4 NON-DISCLOSED FORGERIES

125. SELF-PORTRAIT ON SKIKISHI "
(Page 61, Subtitled: "LYRIC portfolios," in the John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery 540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651- 2479 - www.lennonart.com On page 72, 125. "Self-Portrait on Shikishi" is listed under the subtitle Technique as: Serigraphy), Photo Source: Courtesy of Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum/AP August 13, 2008 "Exhibit of John Lennon's Artwork to Open in Waukesha"
2 OF 4 NON-DISCLOSED FORGERIES


10. PEACE & LOVE 1969 Sold-Out Edition
"The Lennons being interviewed during the 'Bed-In' about thei dreams for world peace." (Page 5. Subtitled "This is my story both humble and true," in the John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery 540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651-2479 - www.lennonart.com On page 71, 12. The "Peace and Love" is listed under the subtitle Technique as: Hand-pulled Lithography)
3 OF 4 NON-DISCLOSED FORGERIES

















12. THE HOLE OF MY LIFE 1977
Sold-Out Edition "'Flashed before my eyes,' John is looking through a black hole in astonishment as he sees his life passing before him. It is reflection on a void that needs to be filled in everyone's life, no matter how successful or secure. We all believe the quality of life can be improved. The hole is symbolic of the void in all our lives." (Page 5. Subtitled "This is my story both humble and true," in the John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery 540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651-2479 - www.lennonart.com On page 71, 12. The Hole of My Life is listed under the subtitle Technique as: Serigraphy)
4 OF 4 NON-DISCLOSED FORGERIES

This image was part of a WISN slide show for this exhibit.[FN 3]

On page 661 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine." [FN 4]
On page 1231 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -proof- is defined as: "The establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence."[FN 5]

So, where is the proof?

The evidence that proves these contentious issues of authenticity for these four non-disclosed forgeries, much less with those tens of thousands upon thousands non-disclosed forgeries falsely attributed to a dead John Lennon, is actually backhandedly confirmed by Yoko Ono and her business representative Pacific Edge Gallery in their published after 1986 John Lennon catalogue.






Front Cover for the John Lennon catalogue and page 1, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery
540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651- 2479 - www.lennonart.com)

Page 1, Excerpt from the John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery
540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651- 2479 - www.lennonart.com)

On page one of Yoko Ono and her business representative Pacific Edge Gallery's published John Lennon catalogue, it is written: "During 1986, Yoko Ono Lennon decided to share John's artistic genius with the public by publishing the first in a series of prints entitled, 'This is My Story Both Humble and True,' followed with 'Bag One Continued...," "Dakota Days," "Karuizawa Series" and "ai: Japan Through John Lennon Eyes."[FN 6]That would make the posthumously (-during 1986-) published "Watch the Holes, Yoko" from -Dakota days-, "Peace & Love" and "The Hole of My Life" from -This my story both humble and true-, at best reproductions.As for the photograph of the titled: "Self-Portrait on Skikishi" numbered -AP 17/50- on page 61 of Yoko Ono's published after 1986 John Lennon catalogue, it has an illegible signature that is attributable to Yoko Ono, not John Lennon.

This posthumously applied Yoko Ono signature is confirmed by one of Yoko Ono's business associates: Pacific Edge Gallery on their website: "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."[FN 7]

Under U.S. Copyright Law, § 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” is — (1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author."[FN 8]

In other words, if John Lennon did not sign it, much less numbered it, it can -never- be considered a -limited edition- by John Lennon.

The dead don't posthumously sign, much less number.

Additionally, -AP 17/50- inscription on the titled: "Self-Portrait on Skikishi," on page 61 of Yoko Ono's published after 1986 John Lennon catalogue, is an abbreviation for number 17 of 50 artist proofs.

An artist proof is defined as: "one of the proofs in a limited edition of original prints. An artist's proof must bear the artist's signature or mark and, since the early 20th century, is usually numbered."[FN 9]

Therefore, since John Lennon did not sign the titled "Self-Portrait on Skikishi," by definition and law it could not be an artist's proof, much less a limited edition.

The dead don't proof.
On page 71 and 72 of Yoko Ono's published after 1986 John Lennon catalogue, "Peace & Love" from -This my story both humble and true-" listed under -Techniques- as: "Hand-pulled Lithography"and "The Hole of My Life" from -This my story both humble and true-," Watch the Holes, Yoko" from -Dakota days- and "Self-Portrait on Skikishi" are listed under -Techniques- as: "Serigraphy."

Lithographs, serigraphs, etchings, woodcuts and the like are original works of visual art that are created by living artists.
This is confirmed by U.S. Customs’ May 2006 Works of Art, Collector's Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property - An Informed Compliance Publication” which states: "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 hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."[FN 10]Therefore, when Yoko Ono decided "during 1986" to publish John Lennon's work, she was at best publishing reproductions not original works of visual art such as lithographs, serigraphs, woodcuts and etchings.

The dead don't create art.
Then to go from the ridiculous to the sublime, on page 1 of Yoko Ono's published after 1986 John Lennon catalogue, it is written: "The OnoLennon collaboration is still taking place."[FN 8] and that "Yoko has blended her art with John's in the color renditions within the collection."

The dead don't collaborate.

So, why did Yoko Ono decide to posthumously colorize, sometime after 1986, black & white reproductions of John Lennon's b&w drawings?This is answered in a July 16, 1997 Detroit News published July 16, 1997 “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.”[FN 11]

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

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.”[FN 12]

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.”[FN 13]

In other words, the real motivation for the posthumous colorization of b&w reproductions of John Lennon’s b&w 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 forgeries at $500 to $9,000 or more each to the unsuspecting public.

Unfortunately for John Lennon's true legacy, not to mention the unsuspecting consumer, it goes from bad to worse. After some twelve years or more misrepresenting colorized forgeries as John Lennon's original works of visual art ie., lithographs, serigraphs, wooducts and etchings, Yoko Ono became embolden around 1998 and authorized the posthumous alterations of John Lennon's drawings into new colorized compositions and had the avarice to promote those colorized altered composition forgeries as drawings he created with his son Sean between 1976 and 1980.











In His Own Write, Copyright © 1964 by John Lennon, Published by Simon Schuster, Inc., Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York 20, N.Y., Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-3385



Pages 62 & 63, In His Own Write , Copyright © 1964 by John Lennon, published by Simon and Schuster, Inc.
1964 PUBLISHED REPRODUCTION OF LENNON'S B&W DRAWINGS




















89. A Herd Moving, “Image: 11.5” x 10” Paper: 15” x 10”, Serigraphy, Stonehenge,” p. 41, John Lennon catalogue with the byline: Pacific Edge Gallery 540 S. Coast Hwy., #112. Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2479, www.lennonart.comNON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUSLY COLORIZED FORGERYNow compare John Lennon's original b&w drawings reproduced on pages 62 and 63 in his published 1964 book titled In His Own Write with the above posthumously (after 1998) colorized forgery titled: "A Herd Moving," one of thousands upon thousands of non-disclosed forgeries misrepresented for sale from $500 to $9,000 or more each as original works of visual art and promoted by Yoko Ono's in her 1999 book titled: John Lennon real love, The Drawings For Sean with an "Introduction by Yoko Ono" and "Adapted by Al Naclerio from Drawings by John Lennon."

What that means is Yoko Ono hired a chromist (someone who copies an artist's work) Al Naclerio to forge colorized and altered compositions using, in part, those 1964 reproductions of John Lennon's b&w drawings.

These original John Lennon b&w drawings were reproduced in his published 1964 In His Own Write book some two years before he met Yoko Ono in 1966 and some twelve years before their son Sean was even born.

Yet in the introduction for Yoko Ono's published 1999 John Lennon real love, The Drawings for Sean, she wrote: "John would draw something and explain to Sean what it was - John would write what Sean had said underneath the drawings as titles."[FN 14]

The fact is these so-called "real love, The Drawings for Sean" are non-disclosed posthumous colorized forgeries by Al Naclerio.

Yoko Ono has no shame.

This documentation is the background for the non-disclosed colorized and altered forgeries that were exhibited in 2008 at the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum.














John Lennon's Self-Portrait lithograph hangs on a wall adjacent to several books about John Lennon and the Beatles Thursday, Aug. 7, 2008, at the residence of a collector who is sharing pieces at the Waukesha County Historical Society and Museum in Waukesha, Wis., during the Coming Together Through the Art of John Lennon exhibit. The show runs from Aug. 16 through Sept. 1. (AP Photo/The Freeman, Kevin Harnack)
http://www.huffingtonpost .com/2008/08/13/john-lennons-rare-art-goi_n_118817.html

COMING TOGETHER THROUGH THE ART OF JOHN LENNONThe Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum in their July 16, 2008 “Coming Together through the art of John Lennon” press release promoted to the public, for the $12 price of adult admission, that it was a collection “of Lennon’s original drawings, serigraphs, and lithographs – purported to be the third largest collection in the world – have been held by an anonymous private collector for decades,”[FN 15] and that it would be “an exclusive showing of 25 pieces of original artwork created by the musician John Lennon” in addition to “the original microphone used during the recording of John Lennon's hit song ‘Imagine.’”[FN 16]

On July 30, 2008 the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum entire staff was notified by email to these contentious issues of authenticity with these so-called "lithographs" and "serigraphs" in their upcoming John Lennon exhibition. That evening the museum's new director of development and marketing emailed a replied. In part, he wrote: "Only a handful of the pieces that are added to our exhibit are lithographs and serigraphs that are from the estate of John, as managed by Yoko. I appreciate your deeply held belief that this is not a purist effort to preserve the value and integrity of the original, and frankly, I am not as invested as you emotionally."[FN 17]

Additionally in that email reply, Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum director of development and marketing stated: "Rest assured that our pieces will clearly labeled as what they are - original or otherwise." [FN18]

MISSION STATEMENTThe Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum's -Mission- states that they are a "not for profit organization, preserving and sharing the history and culture of Waukesha County. We educate and inspire visitors at every stage of learning."[FN 19]

In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”

Therefore, was the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum's promotion of these four non-disclosed posthumous colorized forgeries in their August 26, 2008 to September 1, 2008 Coming Together through the art of John Lennon exhibition, for the $12 price of admission[FN 20], just a lack of connoisseurship?

MUSEUM SAYS THEY'RE LEGITIMATE

In a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published July 4, 2008 "Beatles donors gives Waukesha museum a little help" article by Scott Williams, the reporter wrote: "the Maria Sprecher, an exhibits researcher for the museum, said officials have gone to great lengths to verify the collection's authenticity, even making contact with Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. "They're legitimate - they're real," Sprecher said. "I was rather dumbfounded." [FN 21]

In the August 13, 2008 “Rare collection of Lennon art shown in Waukesha” article by Associated Press Writer Carrie Antlfinger, the reporter quoted the museum director Kirsten Villegas stating: “To have this caliber of an artist such as John Lennon, have this much body of his original work and the lithographs, which he created, in one place, in one public showing is incredibly unusual."[FN 22]

JOHN LENNON SKETCHES ARE PHONY, COLLECTOR SAYS

Now, a couple years later, the Courthouse News Service published on July 8, 2010 the “John Lennon Sketches are Phony, Collector Says” article by Lisa Buchmeir. In part, the reporter wrote: “A man claims he was bilked for $191,000 for phony John Lennon memorabilia. David Petersen says Hawaii-based Celebrities Galleries sold him 14 sketches and a microphone, claiming Lennon used it to record "Imagine." But Petersen says the microphone was not even made until 6 years after the "Imagine" album, and he says the sketches are bogus too. - Petersen seeks punitive damages for misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract and fraud.”[FN 23]

Unfortunately, this is the same anonymous collector a.k.a. David Petersen, who in a Waukesha Freeman published August 9, 2008 "Artist Cries Foul on Lennon Exhibit" article by Joe Petrie was encouraged by three galleries he called to ignore this scholar's claims, is quoted: "Basically he has a problem with any John Lennon lithograph put out after his death - Frankly, it doesn't matter to me because I like the works."[FN 24]

Additionally, in this same article, the Waukesha Freeman reporter wrote: "According to e-mails between himself and Hahn that he passed on to The Freeman, Arseneau sent museum staff links buttressing his objections to the artwork. Hahn responded that the pieces had been thoroughly researched by staff and lithographs will be displayed as such and told him to stop e-mailing the entire staff, saying that he “consider(ed) the matter between you and our staff closed.”[FN 25]

Two years later in a Waukesha Freeman published July 10, 2010 "Lawsuit: John Lennon collector was duped" article by Joe Petrie, the reporter wrote: "A town of Waukesha man who supplied the artwork and artifacts for the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum’s 2008 John Lennon exhibit has filed a federal lawsuit against the persons who sold him many of the artifacts, alleging several of the items are fake."[FN 26]

Additionally the reporter wrote the complaint stated: "Petersen purchased a microphone from one of the defendants that was purportedly used by Lennon while making the Imagine album. However, the document states Petersen later contacted the company that manufactured the microphone and found out it was made in 1977, six years after the Imagine album was made." and the collector "Petersen was told by one of the defendants that the 14 Lennon sketches were obtained from the son of U.S. Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld; however, he later discovered Steinfeld never had a son. Also, after forensic investigators further examined the sketches, they discovered the type of ink used to make them didn’t exist at the time Lennon purportedly made them."[FN 27]

NO COMMENT BY MUSEUM
As for the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum, the reporter wrote: "Museum Executive Director Kirsten Lee Villegas said the organization will not comment on pending litigation."[FN 28]

To truly show how incestuous and widespread this -art of John Lennon- fraud is, one of those three galleries the collector David Petersen called back in 2008 to inquiry about this scholar's allegations that all recommended he ignore, was the Pacific Edge Gallery. This is same Pacific Edge Gallery that partners with Yoko Ono in selling for $500 to $9,000 or more each non-disclosed posthumous colorized and altered composition forgeries as the -Art of John Lennon-.

PACIFIC EDGE GALLERY - THEY'RE PRETTY EASY TO FAKE
This is confirmed in the Milwaukee Journal's published July 9, 2010 "Collector sues dealer that sold him some of the drawings" article by Bruce Vielmetti, where the reporter quoted Pacific Edge Gallery owner Paul Jillson: "He said he generally stays away from any purported Lennon original because it can be so difficult to determine authenticity. 'They're pretty easy to fake,' Jillson said. On the other hand, he said, Lennon did make a lot of drawings. He said his gallery has only one original, with a detailed provenance back to Lennon supported by other evidence. He has seen other purported originals, on paper, similar to the series Lennon drew for Ono in 1969. 'I've always been skeptical," Jillson said. "I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole. They don't add up historically.'"[FN 29]

This same Pacific Edge Gallery owner Paul Jillson, in Associated Press published August 13, 2008 "Rare collection of Lennon art shown in Waukesha" article by Carrie Antlfinger, the reporter wrote: "Paul Jillson, who has represented Lennon's artwork since 1988, said Lennon didn't sell his works though galleries and didn't catalog them, so for someone to have collected so many original is a coup. Ono has 1,700 original Lennon's original drawings."[FN 30]

PACIFIC EDGE GALLERY SOLD COLLECTOR A SERIGRAPH
Later the reporter wrote: "Jillson, who is also the owner of the Pacific Edge Gallery in Laguna Beach, Calif., said he has more than 120 lithographs and serigraphs for sale through the gallery and on exhibition tour but only two original drawings on loan from Ono. The Waukesha area collector bought one serigraph from him, he said."[FN 31]
As noted earlier under U.S. Customs, lithographs and serigraphs are original works of visual art "wholly executed by hand by the artist" and "excluding any mechanical and photomechanical processes."

So, why would an art dealer/gallery owner who professes to sell original works of visual art such as lithographs and serigraphs specifically say he only has two originals?

Aside the California-based art dealer/gallery owner may be incompetent which would be an explanation not an excuse, under California Civil Code 1738 to 1745, if you sell a reproduction for $100 or more, you are required to disclose it in writing as a reproduction. Failure to do so, may include but not limited to, refund-interest-treble damages-attorney fees-expert witness fees and $1,000 fine per occurance.[FN 32]

And this is one of the three art dealer/gallery owners who informed the collector David Petersen to ignore these contentious issues of authenticity raised by this scholar.The Fox guarding the Chickens.

COLLECTOR - PEOPLE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLEAmazingly, in the Milwaukee Journal's published July 9, 2010 "Collector sues dealer that sold him some of the drawings" article by Bruce Vielmetti, in referring to "the 2008 exhibit at the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum," the collector David Petersen is quoted: "We all feel bad because the months of effort we put into (the exhibit) were for a bunch of forgeries" and "I thought I was doing my due diligence," with extensive research, discussions with experts and other collectors and dealers. But he said he's learned that "there's an incredibly complex world of people taking advantage of people's love for the Beatles."[FN 33]

COLLECTOR - LENNON NOT MAKING PRINTS NOT THE ISSUE
Yet, the collector David Petersen is still somewhat in denial because despite being informed two year earlier by this scholar of these contentious issues of authenticity with the so-called -art of John Lennon-, the Milwaukee Sentinel reporter wrote: "A Florida lithographer has made an international name for himself by criticizing many of those reproductions as not truly Lennon works because he didn't make the prints. But Petersen says that's not the issue in his case."[FN 34]

For someone who thinks John Lennon not making the art is not the issue, the collector sure is suing to recover a lot of money from those who allegedly sold him work John Lennon did not make.

Finally, in the Waukesha Now's published August 14, 2008 "Dig it: Beatlemania hits area ... again Lennon's art, Beatles memories 'Come Together' at Waukesha County Museum" article by Jamie Burns, the reporter wrote: "We’re delighted to have this prestigious show at Waukesha County Museum,” museum director Kirsten Lee Villegas said. “Oftentimes you think collectors live only on the East or West Coast. But we have the third-largest Lennon collector in the world right here, in Southeastern Wisconsin. That really speaks to the high quality of art collectors we do have in this area.”[FN 35]

Then as if to subliminally blurt out the truth, the Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum director Kirsten Lee Villegas is quoted later in the article: “You don’t really get to see his artwork,” Villegas said. “It’s almost as if you can see through a window into his soul.”[FN 36]

The blind leading the blind.

To learn more about these contentious issues of authenticity, link to: Artwork of John Lennon $100 MILLION FRAUD, The Dea...

CONCLUSION

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.“Coming Together Through the Art of John Lennon, August 16th through September 1st

“The Waukesha County Museum is excited to announce the exhibit Coming Together Through the Art of John Lennon, an amazing collection of original artwork done by the musician John Lennon. The exhibit will run from August 16th to September 1st. This is a special event with an extremely limited run, so be sure you don't miss it!

“The exhibit will showcase not only original artwork by the ex-Beatle, but also a number of lithographs and rare Beatles collectibles. The local collector who owns these pieces has graciously allowed us this unique opportunity to display his collection, hoping it will help us to raise funds for the museum's growing humanities programming. “As a part of our community, it gives me a great deal of pleasure helping the Waukesha Historical Society and Museum with their efforts,” he is quoted as saying. “I hope that everyone will come together to see these original drawings by John Lennon and be as fascinated by them as I am.”

“Staff can be reached by phone, fax, mail, or e-mail:
Phone:(262) 521-2859
Fax: (262) 521-2865
Address:
Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum
101 West Main Street, Waukesha, WI 53186-4811”

2. Ibid

3.http://www.wisn.com/slideshow/slideshows/17192226/detail.html

4. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

5. Ibid

6. John Lennon catalogue, Published by Pacific Edge Gallery
540 S. Coast Hwy., #112 - Laguna Beach CA 92651- 2479 - www.lennonart.com)

7. http://www.lennonart.com/pages/artist.php

8. www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

9. Published and copyrighted © 1969, 1991 by Bena Mayer ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

10.http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/

11. 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

12. Ibid

13. Ibid

14. John Lennon real love, The Drawings for Sean, "Adapted by Al Naclerio from drawings by John Lennon, © 1999 by Yoko Ono Lennon

15 “Coming Together Through the Art of John Lennon, August 16th through September 1st

“The Waukesha County Museum is excited to announce the exhibit Coming Together Through the Art of John Lennon, an amazing collection of original artwork done by the musician John Lennon. The exhibit will run from August 16th to September 1st. This is a special event with an extremely limited run, so be sure you don't miss it!

“The exhibit will showcase not only original artwork by the ex-Beatle, but also a number of lithographs and rare Beatles collectibles. The local collector who owns these pieces has graciously allowed us this unique opportunity to display his collection, hoping it will help us to raise funds for the museum's growing humanities programming. “As a part of our community, it gives me a great deal of pleasure helping the Waukesha Historical Society and Museum with their efforts,” he is quoted as saying. “I hope that everyone will come together to see these original drawings by John Lennon and be as fascinated by them as I am.”

“Staff can be reached by phone, fax, mail, or e-mail:
Phone:(262) 521-2859
Fax: (262) 521-2865
Address:
Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum
101 West Main Street, Waukesha, WI 53186-4811”

16. Ibid

17. From: Jim Hahn (jhahn@wchsm.org) Sent: Wed 7/30/08 7:23 PM To: 'gary arseneau'

18. Ibid

19. http://www.waukeshacountymuseum.org/mission_history.html

20. http://www.waukeshanow.com/story/index.aspx?id=782470&format=print

What: Coming Together Through the Art of John Lennon When: 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Aug. 16 through Sept. 1 Where: Waukesha County Historical Society and Museum Cost: $12 adults, $10 students/seniors, $6 children; advance tickets are recommended, purchase online or call (866) 468-3401 Info.: (262) 521-2859 or wchsm.org/exhibitsFuture.asp

21.http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/29423759.html

22..http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080814/ap_tr_

23.http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/08/28667.htm

24. Copyright 2010 Lakeshore Newspapers, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Record Number: 20100710Ar00102

25. Ibid

26. Copyright 2010 Lakeshore Newspapers, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Record Number: 20100710Ar00102

27. Ibid

28. Ibid

29.http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/98154104.html

30. http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin_travel/ci_10189922

31. Ibid

32. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/1/1/s1738

33 http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/98154104.html

34. Ibid

35. http://www.waukeshanow.com/story/index.aspx?id=782470

36. Ibid

PRINCIPALS:Kirsten Villegas
Executive Director
Waukesha County Historical & Soiety & Museum
101 West Main Street, Waukesha, WI 53186-4811
(262) 521-2859Jim Hahn
development and marketing director
Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum
412-716-1880
jhahn@wchsm.org

Maria Sprecher
Exhibits Researcher
Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum
(262) 521-2859
ext. 230
msprecher@wchsm.org