Home > michael franses >franses's witness statement: Deception Under Oath
Author:jc
email:
Mon, Oct 13th, 2014 04:49:24 AM
Topic: franses's witness statement: Deception Under Oath

Bogus as a three-dollar bill is the only way to characterize michael franses’s “witness statement” attached to the still unfiled motion for interlocutory judgment he threatened to file against RK.

Sending it was intended to scare us into signing the totally unacceptable “deed of settlement” franses and his lawyers concocted.

Unfortunately for him the “witness statement” had a major problem – much of it was untrue, and what wasn’t was sheer exaggeration. But even if his accusations had been true we would never have signed such a document.

After carefully reading the long “witness statement” and checking the assertions it contains our suspicions were completely fulfilled.

Basically, it’s nothing but a big lie meant to bolster an unwinnable case.

A case even franses knows cannot be won, which undoubtedly is why he has not gone forward.

His threats as bogus as the numerous statements below we have extracted from his “witness statement”.

We guess franses is so accustomed to lying and talking trash he has lost the ability to differentiate between what is true and what he falsely believes, or wants to believe, is true.

Let’s examine the fantasy claims he makes, particularly in light of the fact it, nor the motion for interlocutory judgment, has never been approved by a court, nor has it ever even been submitted to one.

The “witness statement” was supposed to be done under oath and franses acknowledges this at the onset of his statements by stating he is seeking to “…restrain publication of private and confidential information obtained by deceit” and that he has “…been advised of my duty to disclose all matters relevant to this application, I confirm that I have had regard to my duty in providing this witness statement.

We can easily prove his violating this “duty to disclose”, and his oath to tell the truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth, with the lies and half-truths contained throughout his “witness statement”.

The first we spotted was this “…the leading textile magazine Hali which is run by my daughter Jessica Franses.

This is laughable and were it not done under oath one might not take notice of the charade franses has set up by appointing his daughter, jessica franses, to that position. But it is done under oath, and that is not laughable.

She has no experience in, or knowledge of, the ‘textile field’, nor in running a magazine.

She is a fairly recently graduated lawyer and we are sure she spends more time brushing her hair than she does “running” hali magazine.

To boot her name appears nowhere on the magazine’s mast head or its list of employees.

She is the boss’s daughter and were he not the owner jessica franses would stand no chance to be in that job. She’s nothing but a sham nominee stand-in for franses himself.

Second: “…I retired from the antique textile business in 2009. I divided the partnership with my wife Jacqueline and retained the remaining stock in my private collection.

This, too, is laughable as it is impossible to reconcile franses’s supposed retiring “from the antique textile business” and his being employed by the Museum Authority of the Doha Museums as the “…director of special cultural projects” since then.

From his own admissions the only projects franses is involved in revolve around carpets and textiles. In fact he is the Museum Authority’s in house carpet and textile expert.

And retaining his former stock in his private collection?

Might sound good on paper but what then is franses doing offering pieces from that supposed “private collection” to buyers like the fictional ‘Gunter Raps’?

Once a dealer always a dealer and franses is no more a “collector” than Humpty Dumpty is a bricklayer.

Third: “Mr Cassin ….has long held a grudge against me.” This is typical rewriting the truth; for it is franses, who has held the grudge against RK.

Witness the untrue and defamatory statements he made to ‘Gunter’ about us. Is there any need for further proof?

Fourth: “I met him (Cassin) in the early 1970’s and we became reasonably friendly. Our friendship deteriorated in March 1985.

We were not reasonably friendly, as we never did anything but rug business together.

We never had a lunch or dinner together. We never went to a movie, a bar, a club or even for a walk around the block together.

We never discussed anything but oriental rugs.

All franses did was buy some great rugs from us – he surely was not a friend in any sense of that word.

This is typical franses rewriting history to his liking, not to its facts.

Fifth: “I had an oral agreement (in 1985) with an author to publish an article….After Mr Cassin became aware he then went to the author and signed a contract knowing I had an agreement with the author.”

The author was James Mellaart and RK signed a publishing agreement with him in 1983, and it was at Mellaart’s request two years later in 1985 that I intervened between him and franses about this issue.

And franses had no oral agreement from Mellaart. What he had was a non-binding convention that icoc speakers would give their speeches to that rag hali/franses for later publication.

And it was Mellaart’s decision, not RK’s, to refuse to give his speech for publication.

Sixth: By at least 2011 Mr Cassin started to post disparaging comments about me…”…comments designed to insult me. For instance he called me a ‘cut and paster’ ‘ an academic poseur’ one of two ‘carpet baggin clowns’ and ‘an idiot’.”

Sorry but in our opinion franses is are all of the above and more.

RK has proven this beyond doubt, and since when did the truth become an insult?

And when is the truth a disparaging comment?

Seventh: “Matters have escalated recently to the point where he has registered a website UK in my name.

That website, michaelfranse.co.uk was registered in 2009 -- five years ago – as any check of the public record shows.

Records franses is obviously too busy to check or if he has then he just wants to present more mistruth to support his allegations.

Eighth: “By email dated February 24, 2014 6:17PM I received an email from an individual identifying himself as Gunter Raps…It was understood from this email that Gunter Raps was a collector of carpets wishing to acquire examples from my private collection.

Again, franses is making up history to suit his false positions.

RK has already published that email, and not only does it not mention franses ‘private collection”, RK did not even know he had one.

It was only in his first reply to ‘Gunter’ that RK learned of franses’s supposed “private collection”.

While franses wrote to Gunter “I hope you will treat this matter with absolute discretion” about his collection and Gunter intimated by reply he was “discreet”, Gunter never actually said he would be discreet with franses’s information.

Gunter wrote “My interests and actions in the oriental rug business have been very discreet and this is the way I prefer it to remain.” This is a far cry from saying he would be discreet with anyone else’s information.

Much later in one of the last emails he sent Gunter franses expressed concern that Gunter might not keep any of the information sent to him confidential and private “ I am afraid to tell you more as I do not know you will not relate this to him…”. He was writing about the comments he made about us, but regardless of the subject franses expressed serious concern Gunter might not be confidential with franses's information and communications.

From the get-go we said if franses was stupid enough to trust a complete stranger with confidential information he has no leg to stand on if that confidentiality was misplaced.

Ninth: “I feel strongly that my collection is confidential to me to the small circle that I chose to make such disclosure. If the full extent of my collection is made known to the public it damages the value of my collection…I feel that Mr Cassin has stolen the right of mine to keep the full extent of my art collection private.

This is more bald-face lying as half of that “private collection” was previously offered for sale on franses’s website textile-art.com.

We have irrefutable proof – screen shots showing those same rugs for sale to any and all buyers or, in fact, anyone who looked at his website in the past.

So much for the phony “private collection” lie franses is falsely trying to establish.

The photos have since been removed, we do not know when, but so what they were for there for sale and we are sure many people saw them.

And, therefore, franses’s claims our publishing them will damage their value is complete hogwash.

Knowing this makes franses’s writing the following under oath absolutely perjury “I have been very private about my collection.”.

After advertising half of his supposed “private collection” for sale on his website who else but a liar and deceptionist could write this under oath in papers intended to be submitted to a court of law?

Tenth: Referring to other rugs franses has in this “private collection” he wrote “…my ownership of textiles…I jointly own with other collectors…was on the very clear understanding that both parties would keep the contents of such strictly confidential.

Then what is franses doing emailing parts or all of this information to ‘Gunter Raps’ someone he does not know, nor someone who he admittedly can not even be sure will keep such information confidential?

This makes mockery both of franses’s pledge to the “other collectors” as well as his statements to the court under oath.

The ‘witness statement’ ends with franses signing his name to the following “STATEMENT OF TRUTH – I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true

After reading the above ten instances where franses’s statements are proven to be false or misleading and his facts proven to be fiction and fantasy, does anyone need more proof of his duplicity and willingness to lie and distort the truth, even under oath, to try and get what he wants?

We know franses has no case and is not going to try and stop us from publishing the ‘Gunter Raps Saga’.

All his bluster and threats conveyed to us through his lawyer are a waste of time everyone’s time.

More to come, stay tuned

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service