You are a huge challenge for them Peter. You are one of the few people that can muster the right people with the right expertise to destroy them. Can they sue under their company name and then declare bankruptcy.  I just feel that America has a disadvantage in that the distance in miles it would take to attend hearings for this.  

However I think you should consider seeking legal advice and trying to get them prosecuted before they cause you any more inconvenience.   This is an abuse of process, They are using the court process to achieve an ulterior motive which is to change an experts opinion to suit their clandestine business practices. 

I am sure there is a lawyer that might be interested in bringing a class action suit against them from previous buyers and they must have money in the business. Alternatively can you not counter sue them for bringing your expertise into question.

You know best whether they will be able to find fake or corrupt experts that might testify on their behalf. You need to contact the buyers of some of these items to get them appraised if it comes to that. One way or another this was a clever ploy by these people.

They will never actually go to court and indeed it is a Hail Mary, but no harm having access to the items they have sold for appraisal just in case. 

Keep at it Peter! ? 

As a licensed auctioneer here in Massachusetts I'm pretty familiar with state to state regulations on what constitutes fraud and deception. The laws in Georgia are not at much if any variance with the Laws here in Massachusetts as they are guided by the UCC Code and more limited by it than most auctioneers realize. They all toss out some boilerplate agreements for bidders to agree to prior to bidding, they cannot however neuter the rights of anyone to take legal actions in the event of deceptive or fraudulent practices. Nor do they impinge on the rights of anyone to offer an opinion asserting misdeeds by an auction house. 

 Auction terms cannot limit the laws governing the via TERMS and CONDITIONS completely.  Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), express and implied warranties are applicable to auction sales. 

For example, the below disclaimer is limited, depending on the statements made by the auctioneer when describing property.

No statement regarding age, condition, kind, value, or quality of a lot, whether made orally at the auction or at any other time, or in writing in this catalog or elsewhere, shall be construed to be an express or implied warranty, representation, or assumption of liability.

These As IS Where IS clauses etc. have been held to be nearly meaningless if the auctioneer has provided any definitive information describing the property which is inaccurate. For example, advertising or listing a "Presidential Day/Date 18KT Gold Rolex Watch", that later turns out to be a fake, is not protected by disclaimers and neither are Chinese porcelains listed  with periods without modifications such as "Style of" or "Manner of". Many courts have interpreted the "As is Where Is" clause to include "As Is Where Is AS REPRESENTED" 

In the case of Lauren Gallery (and many other auction houses), they in their own literature assert the bidder has the obligation to make his/her own determinations about the item's authenticity.  However, if the auction house provides information which is misleading and by it's presence and is used to guide the bidders decision making process if untrue is deception. 

For example if an auction house advertises a vase as:

Qianlong Style Double Gourd Form Vase

Qianlong Reign Mark, 
Measurements: Height: 13 1/2" Width: 9

The above statement is fine and makes no claims that could legally be construed to unreasonably influence a bidders decision regarding age or authorship. 

The description below is NOT protected by the disclaimer given by the auctioneer.  As it clearly states the age and period falsely without any clarification by the auction house who represent themselves as "EXPERTS"...

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/60602539_qianlong-celadon-double-gourd-vase

Qianlong Celadon Double Gourd Vase

Qianlong Reign Mark, Qing Dynasty.
Measurements: Height: 13 1/2" Width: 9

The above is not ok. As it implies the vase is of the Qianlong period during the Qing Dynasty when it is not. 

You cannot call something a Qianlong vase if it is not and include it in a description and think you're protected by a Disclaimer.  Just as you cannot describe a "Presidential Day/Date 18KT Gold Rolex Watch" and have a leg to stand on if it is not.  The UCC Code does not protect Auctioneers who make misleading written statements no matter how many "disclaimers" they offer, this includes online auctions as well as live auctions. 

So, if folks wanted to sue an auction house who've done this and have sold fakes, they can be easily sued, despite the wording and boiler plate. 

best Peter

Hi Adrian: I'm in total agreement. These people are using bullying tactics to try to silence exposure of their operation.  My point is though that the law in the United States is really intrinsically unfair. There are very few mechanisms whereby an absurd lawsuit can be disposed of without first as a defendant having to go through a very time-consuming, inconvenient and expensive process. In other words, a defendant can win a case and yet still have lost in the final analysis. The whole situation is made worse by the difference between US law and that in the United Kingdom. In the UK the prevailing party in a lawsuit for defamation usually is awarded attorney fees whereas in the USA even if one prevails in a defamation lawsuit brought against one each side usually pays its own legal costs. This is a terrible reflection on the current state of law in the USA because it enables people to bring unwarranted suits for defamation as a bullying tactic without having to worry about their having to pay the other side's legal costs if the judge or jury rule against them.

Regards,

Errol

Of course they can claim harm but not in the legal sense. This would be tantamount to victims of a Ponzi scheme speaking out and then being sued by the fraudster for defamation in order to silence them to  continue committing fraud. There is a balance also to free speech and defamation. This Auction house operates in a very public way. 

Divining a defamation plaintiff's true purpose

The Court observing that a proceeding will be an abuse of process where it is used for the purpose of obtaining some collateral advantage and not for the purpose for which such proceedings are properly designed. Both parties had accepted that the purposes of defamation proceedings were:

• first, for the vindication of the plaintiff's reputation;
• second, to receive compensation for the damaged reputation; and,
• third, to provide consolation for hurt and distress caused by the publication.

Where there is both a legitimate purpose and a collateral purpose to commencing a proceeding, the test as to whether it amounts to an abuse of process was "whether there was a reasonable relationship between the result intended by the plaintiff and the scope of the remedy available in the proceeding". Put differently ‒ but for the ulterior purpose, would the plaintiff have commenced proceedings at all?

• In this case, Dr Toben had admitted in previous writings that it did not matter to him whether or not he was successful in proceedings of this variety.

https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2016/november/damaged-reputation-or-mere-soapboxing-knocking-out-defamation-claims-as-an-abuse-of-process

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/abuse-process-basics-and-practicalities

https://eoasis.rajahtann.com/eoasis/lu/pdf/2017-10-Defamation-Claim.pdf

I hope that Lauren & co are reading these posts.

Mark

They might be or not..regardless it's a "Can of  Worms" I doubt they or any auction house would want to be opened. All being done to suppress an Opinion piece which is protected legally with many precedents. 

I am sure their attorney is a bright fellow and is familiar with what could very easily happen were they to push forward...and would advise/urge them not to.  The Discovery process alone would likely be devastating in it's revelations alone I suspect. Financial records, consignment contracts, company expenditures for inventory, ensuing depositions etc... "Expert employee" backgrounds..etc. 

Not to mention the possibility of the State's AG coming in on allegations of possible multiple UCC violations.  

When we ran large New England estate auctions for nearly 20 years, we were always very careful to make sure all of our statements and representations were totally accurate when it came to the "Goods" being sold and provenance.  As a consequence, we never ever got any bad press, nor did we ever have any legal challenges regarding how we conducted our business. We always did our due diligence as does any smart and honest auctioneer. 

Best Peter