WebLegal

Woo, this is fun, isn't it?

Well, first, to the point. My publisher has gotten back to me on
the matter, and provided me with new copies of the previous
documents, and some additional ones as well. When I looked at the new ones, I could see exactly what happened.. out of respect for the models privacy, he had himself "redacted" or edited out the embossed ID number from the top of the document. He did this by "cloning" a section of the paper from the rest of the document... which produced a document that would "look fake" to someone that was familiar with the general pattern of a Ukrainian passport.

The unadultered version that he has placed in my care, has the
embossed numbers, and the blue "anti-tampering" pattern that runs up the middle of the right page (and right through the numbers) is intact.

Add to that, the publisher has also provided me with another ID
set... a Student ID for a University that the model attends. Oh,
and before I forget it, for those that were making a scene out of
the fact that the contract was in English? He also provided me
with one in Russian.

So, what does that leave us to debate, besides Mr. Markhams
obvious attempt to cast himself in a good light, and others in a
bad light, even if the facts don't support that?

Well, lets address the "signature" issue. This is one that I
would have to classify as a "get real" issue. Perhaps Mr.
Markhams' signature has NEVER VARIED IN HIS LIFE... but real
people do tend to change their writing from time to time, due to
things like, oh, say, their mental state, the surface that they
are writing on, or how tired they are at the time. What about the time difference between when the model got their ID, and when they went in to model? Personally, I ended up getting a rubber stamp for my signature because when I was signing publisher money checks by hand, my signature would get _really_ bad by the end of the run. It seems amazing to beleive that Mr. Markham would paint such a ruinous picture on such a scant clue, but that seems to be his style.

I just _love_ it when Mr. Markham tries to quote me about things
that I have never said. I NEVER SAID that I was "200% sure"...
Mr. Van Varik has stated in an e-mail to me (long before this
began) that "as long as I was 200% sure," he was fine with my
holding the documents. My reply, as it would be to anyone about
such a matter, is that it's not possible to be 200% sure about
anything. The best you can do is go for 100%, and if you aren't
the one actually collecting the paperwork, even that isn't
possible.

Next, how about the "his judgement is poor" thing, because I chose to doublecheck the facts? Wow, I guess every person in the world can be accused of that... Who, save the egomaniac blowhards would never doublecheck info to make sure that they are doing things right? Oh, right, nevermind, I forgot who I was talking to... I'm sure you have NEVER needed to doublecheck anything, ever, in your entire life.

OK, where does this "I don't have the time" bit come from? I have NEVER told a customer that I didn't have the time to take care of them, EVER. Show me the e-mail to a customer where I have ever said that, since you were collaberating with Mr. Van Varik on this. For those that are joining this love-fest late, what I had said in this message thread, that it was obvious that some people weren't listening anyway, and that until I had the new
documentation, I was bowing out of the flame-fest, but that when I had more data, I would return. And Mr. Markham has managed to "interpret" this as "I don't have the time to take care of my customers"? Sheesh! Leaving the Flame-fest was allowing me to actually do some real work, and take care of my customers! Oh, wait, those are facts, please ignore that, Mr. Markham...

The fact of the matter, as has been attested to by many posters to this forum, is that we always take care of our customers to the
best of our ability. We have even paid for legal council before
when situations came up with our customers. We spend whatever time and energy it takes to get our customers out of whatever problem they are having if it is regarding content that they got from us.

The leaps of logic here, such as the automatic assumption by Mr.
Markham that a model is underaged, simply because he didn't like
the ID, is rather astounding, and obviously self-serving,
especially in light of the fact that the only thing wrong with the
ID was the fact that it was redacted in such a way as to be
"clean" instead of having an obvious blur on it.

Lets be frank: Mr. Markham has been using this "issue" as a way
to drum up business. When you take a look at his demeaner, and take a look at how he's conducting himself, and how spurious his charges are getting, it's pretty obvious that he's viewing this is a great way to bring attention to himself. His admitted collusion with the original complaintant (and continued attacks even after the complaintant dropped out of the scene long before) should make this apparent to anyone.

Now that I'm done (hopefully) with Mr. Markham, let me address a few points brought up by others in the next message.