Home > michael franses >franses Deception Under Oath: Part Two
Author:jc
email:
Wed, Oct 15th, 2014 03:44:25 AM
Topic: franses Deception Under Oath: Part Two


Old screenshot of franses’s textile-art.com website showing a rug formerly for sale, which has now become part of his so-called “private collection” and one those offered to ‘Gunter’ several months ago

Lies, big or small, are still lies; however, when done under sworn oath to tell the truth a much more serious issue ensues.

The fact michael franses was willing to submit a “witness statement”, in support of the interlocutory judgment he threatened to file against RK containing untrue statements, ie lies, at times bordering on perjury when compared to his own admissions, says a lot about his character and person.

It says what we have maintained for years, franses is duplicitous and a deceptionist.

Perhaps now this has been brought to light he will try to present the idea he never intended to file the “witness statement” or petition a court for the interlocutory judgment and was only faking it to induce RK’s signing the “deed of settlement” he hoped would prevent our making public the damaging emails sent to ‘Gunter Raps’.

Either way his actions are dishonest, they cannot be ameliorated by more lies.

One of the main reasons claimed in the writ for interlocutory judgment and “witness statement” to gain court mandated help was to prevent RK’s publication of franses’s so-called ‘private collection’.

But the reality four of the eleven carpets in that collection were published for sale on franses’s own website as recently as several years ago makes this argument look weaker than weak and, at the least, ridiculous.

His failure to mention it nothing but additional proof of a willingness to deceive and violate a sworn duty to provide the court with all the facts at his disposal.

We have absolute proof, screen shots from his website, like the one above.

Two of the seven others are also published, though not under franses’s name.

One in a 1985 advertisement, by Italian dealer Elio Cittone, published in that rag hali(issue 25 gallery pg 6) and the other in “Orient Stars” the Kirchheim Collection publication (pg 241).

Seeking court shelter under an interlocutory judgment for rugs already well known from recent former publication in the public domain is both a waste of any court’s time, as well as obvious deception.

And to claim publication by RK, or anyone else, would harm their value or make them less saleable nothing but pretention.

What could harm their value and make them less saleable is factual critique.

We intend to publish such information to show what franses wrote to ‘Gunter’ and the descriptions that appeared on his website, which are both basically one and the same, are fanciful, far too flattering and above all optimistic.

The dating is likewise more franses fantasy over-dating.

Stay tuned, more to come

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service