Comments on: Don’t know much about property

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 04:54:30 +0000

he wanted money to return the paintings. That means he was attempting extortion.

By: Ced

Ced — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:18:49 +0000

If I remember correctly, a judge ruled that Mardirosian is liable for $3M for the the fees acquired by the company looking for the paintings.

Unfortunately he is also disputing them as well.

He’s a criminal, and should be treated as such.

By: markm

markm — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:06:06 +0000

Is Mardirosian claiming that attempting to sell the paintings was the best way of locating the rightful owner, as opposed to, say, directly contacting the authorities?

Even if one accepts that explanation for his recent actions, IMO (as a layman) he long ago crossed the line into criminality – twice. First, he knowingly advised a client in how to advance a criminal operation. Second, he knowingly kept possession of stolen property even after the client went permanently beyond the reach of the law.

By: Duqlaw98

Duqlaw98 — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:48:53 +0000

Can a criminal law attorney enlighten us on the potential criminal liability of Mr. Mardirosian’s actions? I suppose that since he’s retired, there is neither no way nor any point in initiating disciplinary action against him. As a lawyer myself, I am embarrassed that someone like this belongs to my profession. It’s no wonder that the public consistently rates attorneys less trustworthy than used car salesmen.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:50:37 +0000

Will somebody explain to me why this guy isn’t being prosecuted for at least recieving stolen property? Not to mention charges of extortion, fraud and probably many others. He was keeping stolen property in order to get a reward of finder’s fee? He has tried to sell these paintings, what makes him any better than a fence? No wonder people have the opinion of lawyers that they do!

By: Frank Williams

Frank Williams — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:40:52 +0000

Notice: not one word about prosecuting Mardirosian for posession of stolen property and obstruction of justice. He admitted that he knew of the crime, who committed it, and Mardirosian was, arguably, an accomplice after the fact because he intentionally hid evidence of a crime from the authorities. And, to top it all off, he actually planned to negotiate a “finders fee” for returning the stolen property to its rightful owner. People like Mardirosian are the reason the public holds the legal profession in such low esteem.