X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1510184

Complaint Review: Shardan International Galleries - Tucson Arizona

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: art crime crusader — Tucson Az. United States
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Shardan International Galleries 2954 N. Campbell Ave. Ste. #618 Tucson, Arizona United States

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Sharie and Dan Bohlmann through Shardan International Galleries are selling expensive paintings that are faked and/or forged. This is causing people to lose tens of thousands of dollars. They are gallery owners for 40 years and art buyers rightfully rely upon their representations and expertise. 

They also sell mass-produced prints with paint in highlighted areas as originals..." Sharie Hatchett Bohlmann, original on canvas, all rights reserved" for thousands. They are selling these prints to unsuspecting people who trust them in the fashion stated below. Now that they have been caught they are in full coverup mode. Beware!

They befriend you, wine and dine you and then push the sale.

Buyers, legitimate gallery owners, and the masters whose art was forged are mad as hell!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/20/2021 09:15 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/shardan-international/tucson-arizona-sharie-daniel-1510184. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author
6Consumer
1Employee/Owner

#8 Consumer Comment

Rebuttal from professional art dealer

AUTHOR: Judi - (United States)

POSTED: Sunday, October 03, 2021

I have had two careers in my adult life, both of which I feel  endorse my credibility.  I therefore wish to rebut the Ripoff Report filed on SharDan.  For 17 years, I was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer who served in five countries.  For another 15 years following my CIA career, I was the publisher/manager of one of America’s most well-known artists - Howard Behrens.  

While in the CIA, I was exposed to scams and methods of extortion and blackmail.  In short, I know how to spot a “con.”  The Ripoff report filed by Mr. Patrick Cusack, presently residing in Los Carlos - Sonora Mexico and the prior letter sent from Mr. Cusack to Sharie and Daniel Bohlmann are clear examples of a con man’s attempt at Blackmail and Extortion.  Cusack, AKA “Luke” Cusack from Tucson, AZ , used threats and intimidation to extort approximately $80,000 from the Bohlmanns based on his unsubstantiated allegation that he had been intentionally sold a forged piece of Pino art.

Mr. Cusack apparently eschews truth and honesty as this seems to be a pattern of dishonesty and criminal behavior which he exhibits - all of which are documented in legal documents obtained by the Bohlmanns and others.   In my second career, Howard Behrens and I traveled extensively with Pino and his son Max.  We spent many hours together bemoaning the fact that forgeries were being produced of both Pino and Behrens art. 

It became common for forged copies to enter the market, diluting our brands and income.  We spent thousands of dollars trying to enforce our copyrights, but to little or no avail given that the copies were coming out of Communist China.  I know that SharDan has also been affected by these devastating practices. As has already been established, it is only through the existence of a Certificate of Authenticity (COA) signed by the artist or his publisher that the work of any artist  can be verified.  It is entirely plausible and believable that SharDan unknowingly received a “fake” Pino as part of a trade, and that they later unknowingly sold that piece to Mr. Cusack at a remarkably-reduced price - -making no claims about its provenance or authenticity given that they did not have a COA.  

When Mr. Cusack informed them that he had determined that the work was not the original work of Pino, SharDan offered their apologies and immediately offered to refund Cusack’s money.  What more could possibly be expected from any honest dealer?   I totally agree with Mr. Bohlmann’s position that having been falsely accused of the alleged incident and of selling “fake” Chinese copies of Sharie Hatchett-Bohlmann’s art — allegations made with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, and all with the intent of obtaining a large payment from them is clearly extortion. 

I note that in the United States, such actions would constitute a felony punishable by “significant” penalties.  I hope that there are similar consequences in the Mexican judicial system, ones that will discourage Mr. Cusack and his partner from continuing to exploit and attempt to extort innocent individuals.    

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

You might want to consider...

AUTHOR: Karl - (United States)

POSTED: Sunday, September 26, 2021

mailing a copy of your Ripoff Report to 60 Minutes in New York and putting it to the attention of: Investigative Reporter. Maybe they’ll send in an undercover buyer to see if fakes are being sold. The address to 60 Minutes is available at this site.

Just type in 271771 and the address to 60 Minutes appears in Consumer Comment #1 at Ripoff Report 271771.

Good luck to you, and make sure to spread your Ripoff Report all over the worldwide web at sites like Twitter & Facebook every day!

***GLOBAL INVESTOR ALERT: Please type in 1512122 at this site and read Ripoff Report #1512122 and all of the Updates for extremely important information that all investors should know.

”Knowledge is Power”

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

The rest of the story. . .

AUTHOR: Steven - (United States)

POSTED: Sunday, September 26, 2021

As an art collector living in San Carlos, I must first say that my wife and I own four original works of art by Sharie Hatchett Bohlmann and three other prints.  We were never “wined and dined,” as suggested by the originator of this rip off complaint, and in fact, we were never even given a sales pitch to try to sell us any art.  We were in Sharie and Danny’s home on many occasions and asked them if they would entertain the idea of us acquiring some of the paintings on their walls.  With each of the seven pieces we acquired there was a Certificate of Authenticity (COA).

I personally know that Mr. Cusack is the complainer that bought the original painting from Sharie and Danny Bohlmann signed under the “Pino” artist name.  I also know he did not receive a COA because they never had one and none of their galleries ever represented Pino’s art.  It would seem logical to me that if it was important to Mr. Cusack that the art in question was indeed an original “Pino,” then it would have been his responsibility to have the painting inspected and valued by a legitimate art appraiser BEFORE he made the purchase. 

It would also seem very logical that if there had existed provenance or COA that documented the painting being an original “Pino.” with a street value of approximately $50,000, then why would Mr. Cusack expect to buy this painting for $2000 cash and $1000 of credit at his restaurant?  This does not pass the smell test!

Mr. Cusack should have counted himself lucky that the seller had the integrity to offer him his full purchase price back for a painting that he was informed had no provenance or COA at the time of purchase.  Many people would not have offered any return of money under these circumstances.

Also, having personally been involved with Mr. Cusack in awarding him a contract to do a small construction job for us (that was never properly finished), and intimately knowledgeable of the construction job Mr. Cusack was awarded by Mr. Bohlmann, I was forwarded the email letter that Mr. Cusack wrote to Sharie and Danny Bohlmann for my review and opinion.  Danny immediately forwarded this email to me because of my past negative business experience with Mr. Cusack and because Danny asked me to be his back-up advisor on his construction job and receive copies of all correspondence regarding the project, due to his concern over his personal health problems.

This letter was asking for about $80,000 in compensation in settlement of a claim on his part for a $3,000 expenditure for the painting.  When my wife and I read the letter, our first comments to each other were “this is extortion!!”   I am including that letter below, so you can determine for yourself who is the rip off artist that should be highlighted in this case!!!!  Since Mr. Cusack originated this complaint and opened it up for rebuttal, the information I am sharing is solely to give more facts that contradict the original claim.   I think most people will easily see through the BS being thrown around here.  I have only deleted the contact information, such as emails, phone numbers, business addresses and information to protect their privacy, but these are all included in the opening part of the original email.   

 

-----Original Message-----
From: P Cusack
To: Sharie Boblmann
Sent: Wed, Jun 16, 2021 8:26 am
Subject: Pino forgery

Wensday,, June 16, 2021

Sharie and Dan:

We have a very unpleasant matter we must deal with. It is an issue that has literally made me physically ill and disgusted for several days since I first became aware of it. The matter of the Pino “original”.

As a preface, I  intend to deal with this matter in the manner in which Danny deals with issues head on and forcefully; i.e. return of casino hub funds, lemon vehicle claims, the overage of costs on your house improvements with the studio, garage and casita.  We will keep this about business, making a situation right, and avoid consequences that are unthinkable. Danny puts friendship aside when dealing with business matters and I am doing the same. This matter substantially affects and involves Dianne and one other person; Aida, my friend, business associate and manager. Having worked with the courts in Mexico for some years, Aida is well familiar with workings of the legal system. Relating this matter, she has stated that she would be happy to discuss her knowledge of the legal ramifications of your actions in Mexico. She was next to me when I received calls and emails regarding the Pino forgery.

Without mentioning any specifics I have consulted with a well-tenured  and connected Mexican lawyer. Again, although he knows no names or specifics, he has approved of my desire to handle this matter directly and discretely between affected parties in a manner which he has affirmed to be in accordance with commonly accepted Mexican practices of “compensation and damage repair”. At this time there shall be no posting or publication of this document which is solely for the transmission of the sender to the receiver.

The Pino you sold me in February of 2019 is a forgery and you have known this. You have created and/or sold a work of art which you have fraudulently and falsely credited to a  famous master. Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming any innocence: Sharie is a renowned artist and you both were actively involved with Park West Galleries and active in the art world for many decades. You, in fact, are the owners of Shardan International Gallery. 

Let’s examine the pertinent details:

  1. You preyed upon my love of my mother when selling the “original Pino” to me. Shame on you both!
  2. You both stated that you were friends of Pino and had worked on cruises with him and his associates and that you traded other art for the original. You have stated this publicly to many friends and acquaintances. I have confirming emails from Dan that the work was an original FYI… Dan also stated, “You really needed to check out its value and see what a great thing Sharie did for you” (Feb, 17th 2019 email from Dan).
  3. You have told others that the painting was an original in public settings. Not less than 30 individuals have heard both of you say on many social occasions that the piece was an original.
  4. I had a right to believe and rely upon your professional expertise and statement you had sold me an original Pino Painting.

 

Page 1 of 4

Shardan, Pino forgery cont,



  1. On Sunday, February 17th, 2019 Sharie Jo sent me a message asking when would I bring the “Moolah” by for the original? I did so, delivering thousands of dollars and agreeing to a allow a substantial credit tab at Delfines.
  2. Although we had not planed to sell the painting, as if recent with the financial difficulties of keeping a restaurant in business through a pandemic and cost overruns and additions on your construction project, it became necessary to obtain a secured loan of $25,000. 
  3. Believing the work was an original I felt at this juncture it would be best to look into the value of the painting based upon a quick sale. 
  4. Not less than 3 galleries said they would offer between $50,000 and $55,000 and/or they had an immediate buyer for the work. Two well know galleies on the east coast was very interested in the painting (Joanne Watson of J Watson Fine Art and Andy of the Artshop.com). You’re right, an original Pino is worth a great deal.
  5. In early June, during a meeting with Dan in your home/gallery office I mentioned that I might be selling the painting to help during our hard times (pay off a secured loan and make the final payments on the consignment and condo property). Dan was very nervous when I mentioned this and stated I should really talk with Judy Barrons (sp.) as the original Pino would be worth so much more in the future because of Pino’s death.
  6. Dianne and I always knew that should something happen to me, Dianne could rely upon quick funds from the sale of the art should she need them to survive and handle my estate matters.
  7. On Friday June 11th, 2021. I began to reach out to galleries widely known on the web for their handling of Pino works. This included but was not limited to the galleries detailed above.
  8. From two washed-out phone photos of the “original Pino” as well as a close up of the signature, within minutes I had an answer back from one of the galleries saying that they believed the painting to be a forgery. 
  9. A second gallery came back with a similar firm assertion. They asked if I had an objection to their forwarding the photos from my email to the Pino family.
  10. I then received a phone call from these galleries saying that the family had seen the photos and that the work was a “poor forgery”. They then went on to clearly point out the specifics for this absolute 100% determination. This information was supplied by Max, Pino’s son and manager.
  11. Now, I have borrowed $25,000 based upon your numerous representations that the work was an original. I have borrowed based upon the value of a forgery worth nothing.
  12. While the Pino family has no idea how I obtained the painting they are offering their assistance and recommended that I make contact  with any number of organizations who can assist me with a “digital forensic analysis” to see who may have painted this forgery.
  13. The Authentication in Art Foundation.
  14. ARCA- Association for Research into Crimes against Art.
  15. International Foundation for Art Research.
  16. Institute of Appraisal and Authentication of works of Art.

 

Page 2 of 4

 

 

Shardan, Pino Forgery cont,

 

  1. Aida was sitting next to me when I had the phone calls and emails from the galleries and as such she is aware of this matter.
  2. No one else is aware of the specifics and those individuals who are involved.

 

Mexican law provides for “Pre-trial detention for perpetrators of fraud. The passing/selling  of and/or creating of a work of art falsely credited to a master is Fraud in Mexico as well as the US. Further, I have been told that the penalties for such behavior in Mexico can result in the forfeiture of assets including but not limited to real estate. The Mexican authorities may also raid and take into possession any and all art which they believe may be part of a collusion to sell forged works of art.  As mentioned previously in this correspondence Aida can speak with you about such things. Additionally, it would be reasonably expected for the legacy of a fellow artist and all those passing forgeries to be severely and irreparably tarnished both in the local community and internationally buy such actions. 

 It is high time you owned up to what you have done and make compensation for which Dianne, Aida and I will deliver letters of confidentiality and non-disclosure which you feel comfortable with and which are reasonably within our control as victims. I am told by my Mexican council that this is not only appropriate but within my rights and the laws of Mexico.

This offer for compensation and  damage repair, as it is referred to in Mexico, is as follows:

  1. The complete satisfaction of any additional funds that you have advanced on your construction project. I would expect this to be in the area of $25,000 after costs for additional (not in contract) were deducted.
  2. The immediate delivery of the sum of $28,000 US with $25,000 being paid to Dianne and I and $3,000 being delivered Aida to lock her in on a non-disclosure agreement.

 

We would further agree upon, though uncomfortable,  uponthe completion of your project (not including air conditioners, windows, doors, tile, staircase above the pool heater, railings, cabinetry, countertops, toilet or other such amenities) at a rate of $2,400 per week for the next six weeks. I am no longer willing to subsidize and unjustly enrich someone who has done such an injustice to a friend. We would execute a hold harmless document with regard to any claims you might intend to make in the future regarding the construction of your project. If the project takes longer than 6 weeks it would be on my dime without any penalty to you or me. I would be diligent as I want to move on. We both know that if we did not continue with the jobsite, this matter would boil over from the locals being curious. 

Upon delivery of the proper agreements and honoring of compensation we would gladly return the painting to your possession. Or we could have the Pino signature painted over and keep it where it is with no suspicious individuals knowing. You know I can keep a secret, and if anyone were to utter a word about what has happened I could simply just deny it.

 

Page 3 of 4

 

 

Shardan, Pino forgery cont.,

 

I want you to know that Dianne is not so understanding of how this matter requires discretion. She has stated to me, that should something have happened to me, and she would have then discovered the painting was a forgery, she would have used all means available to make the matter public, both locally and internationally. I know you have a lot on your plate right now but you want this matter to go away. The consequences are too substantial and what you have done is so unbelievably terrible. 

I do not have any evidence at this time, but this says nothing of the consequences if a digital forensic analysis were to show that Sharie was the creator of this forgery. I have been told this type of analysis would be free of charge with the help of the agencies listed above. The fact that I have purchased one of Sharie’s originals could be used in this analysis.

There need be no delay in resolving this matter. I am allowing until noon on Thursday, June 17th for acceptance or declination of the settlement proposed above (no counter proposals will be considered). We would immediately work on documents acceptable to the parties involved. Delivery of the funds shall be no later than Thursday June 24th... 

You actions have created this unbelievably disgusting situation we find our selves facing.  I have a Mexican lawyer chomping at the bit to handle this on a full contingency basis. I would have no control of whether or not my solicitor would want to seek the assistance of the Mexican authorities. You need to make this right. Dianne is ready to go “full tilt”. We need to get her chilled and signed onto an agreement. Aida is ready to go straight to the authorities. I can handle Aida and we need to get her signed on. We need to keep our mouths shut and handle this discretely. I do not need to tell you what a huge f**k up this and the numerous legal consequences you could face. This says nothing of the fact you did this to whom you claim as a close friend. 

Sincerely,

Patrick L. Cusack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4 of 4

 

 

Beyond this four-page letter, the following pressure tactic emails with deadlines for payment were also sent to Sharie by Mr. Cusack the day after the original letter.  To me these seem totally inappropriate!!  Please form your own opinions and judgment regarding these emails.

 

 

 

Thu, Jun 17, 7:39 PM

   

to Sharie

Fwd:We have been told my lawyers in the United States and Mexico. You claim to be experts in the field and you are the owners of an art gallery with Decades of experience in the field. You should have done your due diligence before reselling the painting. And you should never ever have represented it as an original. The fact that the painting has Pinos Forged signature in and of itself speaks to the fact that you are reselling it as an original. Tomorrow at 10 a.m. Diane and aida will to do what they have to. You have until 10 a.m. tomorrow no more extensions 

 

 

 

 

Thu, Jun 17, 7:40 PM

   

to Sharie

The only reason that the authorities have not been notified is that I have been holding Diane and Aida back 

 

 

Thu, Jun 17, 7:40 PM

   

to Sharie

Fwd:I'm fine with returning your prints and any belongings of yours that are in the thrift store. It's good time to close it for the season. I know the $18,000 invoice has been doctored. You have often told me that you will write invoices for more than the actual price. I know that the invoice that the other people have does not show a $9,000 trade on a Pino. Mexican lawyers will be happy to take tens of thousands of dollars from you. Diane and Aida we'll go to the authorities and after that point I will have no control of any Criminal actions that may occur. Aida came by your house to make sure all the employees had the proper information with Social Security and insurance. Then she told me she tried to talk to you and you would not talk with her. You really need to talk with her because she has already talked to the prosecutor and comandante without mentioning any names and all I can tell you is what she told me and you need to ask her what they said. The repercussions can be astronomical. We are not in the US. Additionally Diane will spend whatever time it takes working with the Pino family and Galleries in the US and those institutions mentioned in my email to let the world know what has occurred. You think I'm a pushover but I guarantee you Danny would not cut me any slack. We have a very small window. Consider your options carefully 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Response to Con Artist

AUTHOR: Daniel - (United States)

POSTED: Friday, September 24, 2021

Response from Daniel R Bohlmann and Associates

This is in response to the unwarranted, slanderous (spoken) and libelous (written) false statements and absurd representations being made and orchestrated by an acknowledged “Con Man” according to the “Rip off Report, March 3, 2013” of using the alias Patrick Cusack AKA “Luke Cusack of Tucson, AZ”. Luke Cusack’s latest defamation attempt is allegedly being coordinated & orchestrated by his “partner” (according to Cusack’s own statements), Diane York, AKA Dianne Bushenlonga, originally of Canada. Other sources to verify Cusack’s prior alleged Modus Operandi (MO) in USA include but are NOT limited to: “Truth Finder”, “Dun & Bradstreet”, “The Dirty”, “Luke Cusack Blog May 5, 2012.”

DISCLAIMER: It Is critical to note that this is being submitted with total respect for the Mexican legal system and is not intended to relate to any current ongoing criminal and or civil investigation, filings, or reference to any related evidence. I will not comment on current evidentiary matters that have been submitted to proper legal authorities. References to Luke Cusack and his modus operandi, are based on prior evidentiary matters occurring in the USA legal system as noted in his “Rip Off Reports.” Virtually hundreds of pages of USA public records from 1990-2017 as verified by those alleged harmed people named.  I personally disavow any liability whatsoever of others’ claims.  This is solely being submitted so that the reader can research and make their own judgment of who are the real culpable parties.

This reply will address Luke Cusack and his associates laughable and totally unsubstantiated “fake art claims.” It is incumbent and encouraged for all interested parties to view all the undeniable and indisputable former civil and criminal actions in USA brought against “Luke Cusack of Tucson, AZ” (simply search his REAL name, YOU WILL BE SHOCKED!!). There you will find hundreds of pages and numerous articles alluding to nefarious claims by those harmed by Luke Cusack. One such article in RIPOFF Reports, March 3, 2013, is entitled, “LUKE CUSACK, CON MAN, LIAR, SCAMMER, BANKRUPT, DISREPUTABLE, DISHONEST, TUCSON,AZ.” Many other sites illustrate the character of what they claim is a “serial Con Man.” This, in conjunction with his numerous civil and criminal encounters has resulted in his 30-year plus professional con man career. There are over 30 pages summation of Luke Cusack’s USA legal entanglements from the 1990’s to approximately 2020 documented.  This includes his approximately $8,000,000 bankruptcy, various criminal charges, Federal & State Tax Liens, as well as numerous former employee abuse claims.

Now, with that necessary background information, the accusation of “Fake Art” claims can be put in proper context. The “Fake Art” claim in question is an original painting created by someone, but apparently not by the signature on the painting. We acquired the original art piece about 15 years ago via a second-hand resale source with no validation (provenance), as to the art’s certificate of authenticity. The authorship of the work was not important to us. We only acquired it as a “trade in,” for about $9,000 USD, credited for some art we were selling. We only wanted and used the “trade in” artwork as a decorative piece in our California home.

Cusack saw the art in our storage area and requested to purchase it in approximately 2018. At all times before, during, and after the sale of the artwork to Cusack, he was fully aware that the artwork had no authentication as to the origin, value or authorship. He was told, and he fully understood, that to properly insure the work he would have to have it appraised and certified by a qualified dealer. He said he only wanted the piece to hang on his wall, since it reminded him of his late mother.  It was sold to him “as is where is” with no representations, expressed or implied! Cusack indicated he never intended to sell the work and that authentication as to the arts origin and provenance/value was unimportant to him. Cusack clearly understood that it was like purchasing a car with no title, no proof of origin, he would have to verify the piece, at his expense!  He understood that art verification of value was just like a title to a car or home, or even jewelry, like a diamond ring, with gemologist statement of quality and value!

Now, in an unrelated matter, in January of 2021, we hired Cusack’s construction company to complete a remodeling project for us, which Cusack guaranteed not to exceed $24,400 USD, and/or construction time of no more than 10 weeks (which would have been completed the first part of April 2021).  He rapidly went over his guaranteed amount of money and time, and needed additional funds, but promised IN WRITING that he would repay whatever amount it came to at that time (already $40,000. USD over budget!).  Cusack requested more funds, and when we refused to give him any more funds, he walked off the job!

Cusack then said he was going to sell the painting to help him financially. We again told him he would have to have the piece certified and appraised by an authorized dealer to obtain maximum resale funds. He claims he verified the piece was not created by the named artist and goes on to claim the artwork is “worthless”. Obviously, the artwork was created as an original by someone, and if not the artist noted, then it potentially was created by someone that was a current or former assistant/student of the noted artist or someone copying the artist.

At that point, we immediately offered to pay Cusack a full refund of $3,000 USD, explaining regardless of who painted the work, it had some value as an original work created by someone. BUT HE REFUSED TO RECEIVE 100% OF HIS PURCHASE PRICE!

Cusack responded with absurd financial demands and threats to ruin my wife and me on social media (i.e. Rip Off Reports, et al) and other avenues. (Rip Off reports, Facebook, etc., unsubstantiated claims to the police, other Mexican authorities, as well as other threats). He submitted a multi-page demand letter with shocking elements that can not be disclosed per Mexican Law.  At the time we received his “demands” and prior to any filing of charges or hiring legal counsel; we sent the demand letter immediately to others in the community that had been financially harmed by Cusack. All recipients of the demand letter were SHOCKED!!

We immediately hired legal counsel to have the matter properly heard. Since Cusack and his accomplices utilized the internet numerous times, we are pursing appropriate legal action in USA and Canada for litigation of all appropriate matters in those venues.

Cusack and his associates have now gone to great lengths to fabricate a story that Sharie’s Romantic, mostly copyrighted paintings, are “Chinese copy art.” The truth of the matter is that most, if not all, of Sharie’s original art creations are copyrighted and certified by the US Government Copyright Registration Office over the last 30 or 40 years and enforceable in most International Countries including Mexico.

From Sharie’s original creation she can paint a copy of the work and then repaint some or all the work by changing the scene and possibly keeping some of the original design that blends with the new original. This is very commonplace with established artists, and it is known globally as “Derivative Original” art creation.

We have shared the derivative original art definition with Cusack and provided him copies of over 12 legal art scholar reference books as well as US Copyright legal protection definitions all of which clearly protect the artist and their new “derivative original art” creation. Unfortunately, being the consummate “Con man” as Rip Off Reports calls him, Cusack chose to totally disregard the lawful definition of “derivative original art,” and created a false scenario of “fake art.”

It is interesting to note that historically, legendary artists such as Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and countless others employed “assistants’ to help create works for them and often used similar scenes or “repainted” over existing originals to recreate a new or derivative original.

For the novice reading this, it should be clarified as an example of “derivative original art” that even the great Michelangelo hired Francesco Granelli to employ numerous assistants to help him paint the legendary Sistine Chapel.  These artist assistants created figures, designs, and elements of the painting, followed up by Michelangelo adding his unique touches and design concepts as he deemed necessary and appropriate.  The completed work was an original art piece, totally attributed to Michelangelo, although large portions were executed by “assistants.”  Now fast forward some 25 years later and Pope Clement VII commissioned Michelangelo to return with assistants to cut down two scenes and create “The Last Judgment” scene.  This was a clear example of the artist taking his original (which was partially created by assistants) and changing it to create a now “derivative original;” i.e. a new original derived from the prior original and although assistants were employed to help create the completed work, Michelangelo received 100% artist credit for the completed “derivative original.”  Now to further explain this well-accepted art form, upon Michelangelo’s death, the artist, Daniele Da Volterra was commissioned by the pope to paint over some of the nudes and make changes to Michelangelo’s work and now Da Volterra has created another “derivative original” which he can rightfully claim authorship to!!

Of course, if you read the false accusations of Cusack and his named accomplices, they would have you believe that Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and countless other great artists throughout the years created “fake art” by using assistants and/or painting over previously created art works to create new originals.  All one merely has to do is to go to any established art museum and ask the curator how many of the “original” art pieces in their collection are in fact paint overs resulting in one or more paintings remaining under the one you are viewing and often thereby “derivative” originals!!

 A con artist on a mission to deceive and discredit will go to any lengths to attempt to distort the truth and portray the innocent party as the criminal and the “con artist” is merely the victim!  Everyone harmed by con artist in the past will attest to their deceptive practices.

 Contemporary artists, such as Jeff Koons, sell original works that they don’t create at all, they only offer the concept. Koons recently sold a work for $58 Million USD and freely admits he never even touched the creation piece! Other renowned artists including Warhol, Peter Max, Dale Chihuly and countless others utilize “students” to implement their original concepts and sign their name to the finished works. All the final products can be copyrighted and sold as the artist original or derivative original works.

The bottom line is Sharie diligently plans, executes her designs, layout, focal point, color choices, etc., on each of her original creations. If the final original works becomes very popular, then she may choose to vary distinct elements of the original and make a new “derivative original” from that work.

SHE CAN REPAINT ON ANY MEDIUM SHE CHOOSES INCLUDING A “CANVAS PRINT” AND THEN RECREATE HER “DERIVATIVE ORIGINAL” OR IF 100% REPAINTED AND REDESIGNED IT IS NOW A NEW ORIGINAL!! Then the completed “Derivative Original” can be legally copyrighted by the artist.

Her “Rooms with Views” series is a perfect example where she may retain much of the foreground imagery and then substantially recreate a totally new background scene. (See www.shardan.com for artist biography and a video of her creating an original painting.) Of course, Luke Cusack & his associates’ actions are a serious and personal afront, created by the noted “con artist,” to attempt to create false representations relating to Sharie’s six decades of extraordinary artistic success.

Sharie has designed and copyrighted literally tens of thousands of creative designs over the last 60 plus years. She has been commissioned by US Presidents, major celebrities and corporations to create her unique art style for their respective needs. Her works are celebrated and featured in venues throughout the world. Her personal philanthropy is legendary where she has contributed several million dollars’ worth of retail art to support needy charities in their silent & live auction fundraising programs.  The City of Palm Springs recognized Sharie’s phenomenal career achievements in 2007 by awarding her a granite sidewalk star on the Celebrity Walk of Fame. At 81 years, Sharie, with a frail heart condition, will not condone this insane activity to attempt to discredit a perfect unblemished career!

These “con artists” are DESPERATE, and they have been discovered as “frauds” in the USA & Canada. We appreciate the countless numbers of supporters who have come to Sharie’s defense and nullified all the slanderous and libelous actions of “The Con Artist” conspirators!!

Cusack and his accomplices are attempting to do what they promised in Cusack’s threats, namely, to defame Sharie’s art career, my legal business career, file unsubstantiated legal actions, etc. all designed to negate his financial obligations.

Cusack has orchestrated his named “partner” accomplice, Dianne Bushenlonga-York, to attempt destroying our lives throughout the Community and on social media. In addition, Cusack has allegedly enlisted his business manager to claim some outlandish claims against Danny. Of course, none of their false claims or activities will succeed as Cusack and his fabricated past has finally caught up with him!!

Now, Cusack’s “FAKE” claims take a whole new meaning when you look at his Facebook page or his promotional materials where he claims to be a Harvard graduate and a University of Arizona Graduate. Both claims are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!! The Registrar’s Office of both institutions are taking appropriate action against Cusack for falsely representing he was a graduate and in fact Harvard confirms he never even attended that institution (copies of fraudulent social media listings are available for your review.)

Dianne Bushenlonga-York has her own set of issues now that The Canadian Government Benefits Fraud Division has an open case against her for “BENEFIT FRAUD”. She claims to be totally and permanently disabled receiving some $5,000 Canadian over the last many years. Her estranged husband, Brett York, as well as her daughters and other witnesses will be called to confirm or deny her disability status and modus operandi including sales of allegedly “knock off” jewelry, watches and other items. The Canadian authorities are in possession of countless video & still shot photos of her drinking, dancing, & partying up a storm!! Mr. York has already admitted to her deception in writing.

We encourage anyone who has been harmed by Cusack and/or his accomplices to contact us anytime or if you desire clarification on any of the issues raised herein.

Additionally, we are pleased to have had several past victims of Cusack from Arizona and San Carlos, come forward and even offer funds to be attributed to litigation costs to be utilized in the successful prosecution of Cusack and his accomplices. We sincerely appreciate the support of the many locals that have been financially harmed by Cusack’s actions and thank you for your efforts to clean up San Carlos!!

IMPORTANT UPDATE: I just received confirmation from the US Department of Justice, that jurisdiction of alleged misconduct via international internet correspondence by any US citizen will likely avail me additional US claims for “Elder Abuse and Elder Financial Exploitation under Title 10, et al.”  Additional protection has afforded me as a permanently disabled US Army veteran and VA Hospital treatment for my terminal CLL/SLL stage 2-3 leukemia.  Appropriate pro bono legal representation will be forth coming and targeted to all culpable parties

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel R Bohlmann and Associates

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

thank you for your comment...I do appreciate your ideas but let me further clarify.

AUTHOR: Danny - (United States)

POSTED: Thursday, September 02, 2021

On many occasions since purchasing the fake/forgery, I was told by the gallery owners that it was an original. They even put this in emails to me and told all of our friends while attending parties that the painting was a Pino original and that they knew Pino and traded artwork for the painting. From what I understand, having talked to many legitimate gallery owners, that the crooks who sold me the painting to me had an obligation to know that it was a fake, and even if they did not they are liable to make recompense to me no matter what. They have refused to make recompense and are at this time using a smear campaign against me to hide their deeds. 

Let me just ask...so they bought Chinese prints, they pained upon them and then labeled them "Sharie Hatchett Bohlmann...Original on canvas...all rights reserved" then put a selling price of thousands. Now then they claim innocence as if they did not know anything. They must have had a ghost in their house doing these things?

To boot there are many victims.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Where is the COA?

AUTHOR: The farmers daughter - (United States)

POSTED: Thursday, September 02, 2021

I own several original print canvas by several artists, it’s quite common in the art world.  A certificate of authenticity for artwork comes with every piece sold. I am interested in knowing if you have purchased said artwork yourself, and where is the COA? The COA certificate is the number-one tool in determining an artwork's provenance, with the certificate declaring that the work was indeed an original piece of art.

If it comes with a COA it is deemed original, if it is sold without a COA, then it is most likely not an original. Although, it’s not illegal to sell artwork without a COA, nor is that considered fraudulent in the art world, unless a painting is sold by an artist with a fake COA. Pictures of your art (if you have any) and the COA would be most appreciated to deem your unsavory accusation as fact or a naive grudge.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

fakes are fakes

AUTHOR: san carlos - (Mexico)

POSTED: Wednesday, July 21, 2021

 i see the paintings and are fakes, i never trust in this people anymore, because many people extorted with "the original paintings" in this town

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Art Crime Crusader, Exposing your...

AUTHOR: Karl - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Ripoff Report on the worldwide web was a good idea.

A Harvard Business Professor told his class of executives in late 2004 that EXPOSURE is a corporation’s worst fear. He would have also been correct had he said that it’s a person’s worst fear.

You can type in 269041 at this site and scroll down to the comment entitled “Blame it on a Lawyer” at Ripoff Report #269041 and read more of what the good Professor said to his class of executives in late 2004.

Good luck to you!

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now