wyrick 'rips off' harary on ellen

[NCMarsh]

"Remember...when you point a finger at someone, there are usually three fingers pointing back at you."

Harary is accusing Wyrick of lifting his material without permission, what fingers point back at him for this?

Someone stands up to defend his work and the response is to publicize his bankruptcy? One has zero to do with the other.

Sure, the conversation was one-sided. Then bring in the other side. But "Harary is bankrupt" is not the other side of "Wyrick took Harary's piece".

Nathan

[NCMarsh]

[to the admins: this conversation seems to be getting spread over three threads; would it be possible to consolidate it somewhat for readability?]

[Travis]

MagicLaw, you seem to overlook the point of what I said. Wyrick should have acted like a decent human being and not forced Franz into a no-win situation by claiming that he was going to do Franz's trick whether Franz agreed to a deal or not.
That is simply wrong. He shouldn't be forced to have to defend something he did not wish to give up. Wyrick, instead, should have acted ethically toward his fellow magician and human being and accepted that Franz did not want to sell the rights. Wyrick acted improperly here, knowing how difficult and expensive it would be to stop him if he did it anyway without Franz's permission.
In my book, that's not how you treat other people. It's nothing but selfishness.

[Steve Bryant]

I assume what is the disputed illusion is shown here:

www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=748658994278

Of course, it might not be ethical for some of you to look at it.

[Richard Kaufman]

I just don't see a lot of sympathy for Steve Wyrick anywhere in the magical community.

Franz, on the other hand, is a genuinely nice guy and many of us are friends with him. Seeing that he's filed for bankruptcy makes me sad. Seeing Wyrick file for bankruptcy, on the other hand, seems like a good case of comeuppance.

[Magic Newswire]

I feel sad when anyone finds themselves in that position. Yes, there are circumstances that make me qualify how badly I feel, but it is not a good situation for anyone or for magic. It obviously is just one more sign of the times. I guess that I am more of a softy than I though that I was when I soldiered.

[Jonathan Townsend]

"He basically told me he was doing it if I was making a deal or not."

Not a great way to accumulate good Karma in a field that's all about how people feel about what they perceive as real.

[Brad Henderson]

Actually, Steve Wyrick no longer being able to afford to perform IS good for magic.

[Ryan Matney]

Richard,

For those of us (me) that are not privy to Wyricks actions, can you tell us what he has done (allegedly) to be so hated?

Has he done things to people other than Franz?

[Tim Ellis]

If I was Steve Wyrick, I'd come on to this forum and try to divert attention by pointing out Franz's bankruptcy.

Just saying.

[Brad Henderson]

And I'd do it anonymously

[Dustin Stinett]

The major difference between Franz Harary and Steve Wyrick is in the court of public opinion and is based on their behavior over the years. These have had consequences on their reputations. For Franz its been mostly positive while Mr. Wyricks is at best questionable.

In my opinion, the most original thing Steve Wyrick has ever done is...well come to think of it, I cant think of a single original thing Steve Wyrick has done. Instead of lifting the name of someone elses showas he didhe simply should have called it, The Best of the Rest.

Like Richard, I am saddened by Franzs situation and if there was anything I could do for him I would do it. Wyrick, it seems to me, likes to burn bridges and piss on the ashes, so I have no empathy for him.

Looking through his personal papers, perhaps some (or all) of Franzs current difficulty may have been avoided had he been paid the $400,000 owed him by the Chinese concern. But Im just guessing since the debt is seven years old. (But I suspect that it sure wouldnt have hurt his situation to actually be paid that sum.)

I do wonderand perhaps our learned and anonymous attorney can explain it to mehow having this information (for Harary, Wyrick, or anyone for that matter) so easily available to us is in the public good. I understand why a creditor would need access to this information, but why do I have access to it?

Dustin

[Tim Ellis]

Magic Law also started threads about Wyrick on The Magic Cafe

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... forum=36&7

Coincidence?

[Q. Kumber]

Tim also started a thread about the Merlin awards on The Magic Cafe

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... 1&forum=36

Coincidence?

[MagicLaw]

Tim, that is true. I get Facebook news from many magicians, including Steve Wyrick...and on Friday I saw a news feed that he was going to be on Ellen. I asked my wife to TiVo it for me and then I thought I was being helpful by posting info about his appearance on the magic boards. At the time, I had no idea it was going to be so controversial. As an attorney, once it became a "legal" discussion, it prompted my further interest in the entire situation and I did some independent research in public records to see what I could find out. Then, once again, I simply posted the information because I thought I was being helpful by contributing to this discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. I also had no idea how hateful some people would become about this subject matter...that is a real shame.

[Ian Kendall]

I think people would be less hateful if you bothered to put your name to you posts, which did look a lot like trolling.

Ian

[MagicLaw]

What is "trolling"?

[Jim Riser]

It's a legal term.
Jim

[Travis]

Who's being hateful, MagicLaw? Us? Is that a joke? Let's be straight here. Steve Wyrick is more guilty of being hateful than anyone on this board. To essentially blackmail someone by telling them that you're going to take their original material whether they agree to it or not is about as low as one can get. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. No two ways about it. What a sh*tty thing to do. It certainly gives us a clear picture of Wyrick's character, or lack of it. Of course, I noticed you never addressed this, MagicLaw.

If Wyrick was interested in the Tank trick, then he should have asked to make a fair deal WITHOUT the caveat that he would be doing it even if the deal wasn't agreed to. If Franz then said no, the conversation should have stopped right there.

Nathan and others on this board have rightfully pointed out that Franz's bankruptcy has absolutely nothing to do with this matter, so why drudge it up? Just to smear his name? You're as bad as Wyrick (assuming you're not him). I agree with others here: post your real name. Why don't you want anyone to know?

I've worked with Franz and his wife many times in the past and I, as well as many others here, will tell you that he's a really great guy. One of the nicest, most genuine people I know. Wyrick, on the other hand, whom I've only met briefly, is preceded by his bad reputation in magic, as mentioned by others in this thread.

Instead of "hating", how about I give you my honest opinion? Clearly, Steve Wyrick hasn't a single creative gene in his DNA makeup, and, subsequently, I suppose, not a single original thought. Even so, there are countless effects in existence that he could choose to do without resorting to underhanded scheming and bullying. Obviously, though, he's a perpetual wannabe. Monkey see, monkey do. A cursory viewing of the "performance" (I shudder to call it that) on Ellen's show reveals bits lifted from David Copperfield, lines and traits of Franz's being mimicked, and a wardrobe lifted from a 14-year-old who shopped at Hot Topic...in 1992. Everything about it was awkward and uncomfortable. And, worst of all, he ruined a great trick, essentially exposing the appearance of the girl. Watch Franz perform this and it's amazing; the girl just seems to materialize in the water. Not so in this case, sadly. Wyrick may as well have donned a mask and inked a deal with FOX for a new exposure series. In a word, it sucked.

[MagicLaw]

I'm not sure about that, Jim:) But I am 100% certain that your metal craftsmanship is some of the finest anywhere. I absolutely LOVE your cups!

[MagicLaw]

Travis, I have no idea what transpired between Mr. Wyrick and Mr. Harary other than what is disclosed in their public court filings. Mr. Harary has allegedly provided several emails with his side of the story, but my point is that Mr. Hararys current position that he was somehow forced into a deal with Mr. Wyrick is not consistent with his judicial admissions filed with the court. He sued Mr. Wyrick for breach of contract which clearly means Mr. Harary believes there WAS a contract between them. In the grand scheme of things, it sounds like Mr. Harary simply regrets striking a deal with Mr. Wyrick. This is nothing new for me because I hear about buyers remorse from clients all the timebut that certainly does not mean that the other party did something unlawful. Again, the main point Ive been trying to make in this entire discussion is that the court records prove Mr. Harary entered into a contractual agreement with Mr. Wyrick where he GAVE Mr. Wyrick the right to use and perform the Water Tank illusion, and the allegation that Mr. Wyrick ripped off the trick is inaccurate. Mr. Harary now seeks to rescind the contract because he feels like Mr. Wyrick breached his end of the deal by delivering a broken airplane appearance illusion. Still, Mr. Hararys newly-stated claim that he was somehow forced under duress to grant rights to the Water Tank illusion to Mr. Wyrick seems highly suspect, especially since this allegation was mentioned for the first time in emails that Mr. Harary clearly intended to be forwarded and disseminated for the purpose of trashing Mr. Wyricks reputation. Mr. Harary is already pursuing his legal remedies through the judicial system and I believe that is where this dispute should be resolvedbut since Mr. Harary has elected to make this a personal and public matter, my goal was simply to shed a little more light on the actual facts as supported by the public records. There are two sides to every dispute, and I assure you this is not the first time a party to a lawsuit has put a favorable spin on things to try and sway peoples opinions. It is certainly Mr. Hararys right to speak his mind publicly and try to use this tactic. IMHO, however, it just seems like Mr. Harary is a very frustrated and angry person who, by his own email admission, feels better inside when he gets to trash another person within the magic community. Clearly, nobodys opinions or minds are going to be changed by this discussion as there are those who definitely seem to have reasons to dislike Mr. Wyrick beyond these issues. I have no personal knowledge or ability to speak to any of that, so I wont even try. But within the scope of the Water Tank illusion, I simply do not buy Mr. Hararys claim of being ripped off or blackmailed because that is completely inconsistent with the papers he previously filed in the court.

[Travis]

Newly stated claim? Hardly. As noted previously, I was working with Franz in Atlantic City in 2007 when I heard about this firsthand. It's not a new claim at all.

[Magic Newswire]

Trolling Defined - From Wikipedia

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.

[Tim Ellis]

MagicLaw says: "Mr. Harary is already pursuing his legal remedies through the judicial system and I believe that is where this dispute should be resolvedbut since Mr. Harary has elected to make this a personal and public matter, my goal was simply to shed a little more light on the actual facts as supported by the public records."

And why do you feel that it's your duty to shed the light in this particular case?

[MagicLaw]

Travis, whether you realize it or not, you are lending credence to the point I have been trying to make regarding the lack of truth behind Mr. Hararys new allegations spread via email this week. You state that in 2007, Mr. Harary was already complaining about Wyrick ripping off the Water Tank illusion when you worked with Mr. Harary in Atlantic City. However, when Mr. Harary filed suit on April 14, 2008, he made absolutely NO MENTION of blackmail, duress, or any other underhanded tactics by Mr. Wyrick to force him into a deal for the Water Tank. Instead, Mr. Harary told the court that he NEGOTIATED and GRANTED the use and performance rights to Mr. Wyrick as part of a business deal. Consider the following word-for-word exceprts from Mr. Hararys statements of fact that were filed with the court in Las Vegas:

***Excepts from Mr. Hararys ORIGINAL COMPLAINT filed in Clark County, NV***

That Wyrick, in the course of his performance career has modified or has utilized illusions that have become associated with his name and identity.

That Harary, has created, constructed and performed a number of illusions which by virtue of TV and stage performances have become exclusively associated with Harary and his professional identity.

That on or about 2006 Wyrick expressed an intention and desire to purchase and perform, a specific illusion created and utilized by Harary known as the Harary Water Tank Illusion (hereinafter referred to as the Tank Prop).

That the Harary Tank Prop has become over a period of time and through a series of TV and stage performances, an illusion specifically and excluasively associated with Harary, in its unique construction, methodology, and choreographed presentation.
That on or about 2006, Wyrick expressed his desire to Harary to utilize the Tank Prop in his Las Vegas based show.

That pursuant to negotiations, Wyrick, was to trade Harary, his Appearing Airplane Illusion (hereinafter referred to as Plane Prop) with performance rights for the tank prop.

That Plaintiff Harary, sought and contracted for the acquisition of the Plane Prop, as utilized by Wyrick in the Worlds Greates Magic TV show shot at Caesars Palace Hotel/Casino in Las Vegas during the mid 1990s.

Further, Wyrick understood, that Harary would utilize said illusion for his own performance purposes and/or would sublease, said plane prop to third persons by way of rent or other trade
Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiff [Harary], did provide to Defendant [Wyrick], the tank prop. Also pursuant to the agreement, the tank prop, was provided, so as to allow Wyrick, to have the tank reconstructed and custom build [sic] to his own specification and in new condition.

That in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement Plaintiff [Harary] allowed Wyrick performance rights to the tank prop and its presentation sequence which previously thereto had been exclusively, performed by Plaintiff [Harary].
Wyrick has since regularly used the prop and the exclusive presentation sequence.

Pursuant to the terms of the bargain, Wyrick, who had been quoted $100,000 as the purchase price for the tank prop to him, instead agreed to exchange his plane prop to Plaintiff [Harary] in working condition

That under the terms and conditions of the negotiations, Defendant [Wyrick] had represented, that the condition of the plane prop was in performable condition, and as such was not a prop needing to be reconstructed, but instead with only body work and paint, could be immediately utilized by Plaintiff [Harary] and others

After Plaintiff [Harary] had duly delivered the prop to Wyrick and after he had reconstructed his own version of the tank prop, Plaintiff [Harary] received the plane prop [from Wyrick]

***End of Excepts from ORIGINAL COMPLAINT filed in Clark County, NV***

Mr. Hararys complaint goes on to describe a variety of different ways in which Mr. Wyrick allegedly breached the terms of their contract because the airplane appearance prop was allegedly not in good and working condition upon delivery to Japan where Mr. Harary had already pre-sold the prop to a third-party sight unseen.

****************

So what is my point with all this?

I have made absolutely no statement or judgment on the merits of Mr. Hararys lawsuit or his allegations that the plane prop was not in working condition upon delivery. For all I know, the plane prop could have been delivered to Mr. Harary in a hundred different pieces packed in trash bags. Obviously, that is a major factual issue to be decided by a judge or jury in due time.

The ONLY point I have been making from my first participation in this discussion is that Mr. Hararys inflammatory emails trashing Mr. Wyrick are NOT supported by his judicial admissions filed in a court of law. His lawsuit NEVER says anything about being blackmailed into a deal with Wyrick or that Wyrick forced him to take the deal under threats. Rather, Mr. Hararys judicial pleadings state that pursuant to negotiations with Mr. Wyrick, Mr. Harary bargained performance rights for the tank prop in exchange for Wyricks plane prop. In other words, Mr. Harary has already admitted this was a NEGOTIATED BUSINESS DEAL between two willing participants. Indeed, Mr. Harary tells the court that he intentionally sought and contracted for the acquisition of [Wyricks] plane prop as part of the bargain/contract between them. Thus, Mr. Hararys new claim that Wyrick blackmailed him into a deal with threats and duress simply does not hold much water when compared directly to Mr. Hararys statements that were filed with the court. His court pleadings prove this was a negotiated transaction that, unfortunately, went south after the fact. Mr. Harary has buyer's remorse (perhaps with good jusification?).

One other issue that has not been discussedMr. Harary made the statement that the performance rights he granted to Mr. Wyrick allegedly did not include TV performance rights. That is a contract interpretation issue that Mr. Harary should probably add to the pending lawsuit if he truly feels he was damaged by Mr. Wyricks use of the Water Tank on Ellen. Then a judge can determine how their contract should be interpreted on that point. However, my initial reading of Mr. Hararys court filings tells me he would be an uphill battle because the term performance rights" as used by Mr. Harary is probably subject to a broad interpretation by a judge.

[Dustin Stinett]

So, only hypothetically speaking of course, where would the clause that saysin lawyer-speak (and what would that be?)Since the rat-bastard told me that he was going to use my trick whether or not I granted him permission to do so, I figured I might as well negotiate SOMETHING out of the deal, so I went for this other trick go in the preceding section of the contract (and would you advise your rat-bastard client to sign it with that clause in it)?

[Steve Bryant]

Tim: Why don't you want light shed on this case? Did you want this information hushed up?

[Travis]

My thoughts exactly, Dustin.

[MagicLaw]

Steve and Tim, unfortunately I get the feeling there are a large number of folks who would prefer to hear only one side of this dispute and pass immediate judgment without bothering to ascertain the accuracy of what was stated by Mr. Harary in his accusatory emails against Mr. Wyrick. It is part of my profession and daily job routine to investigate facts and gather information in order to get a clear picture of disputed situations. Thats all I did here by going directly to the court records to read them for myself and then sharing what I learned. Based on the critical feedback my postings have triggered, it appears there are many people who despise the revelation of any facts that disrupt or contradict their pre-decided version of the story. That hush hush attitude is exactly why Im glad I shed additional light into some of the corners of this situation that other people would have preferred to keep in the shadows. I guess some people prefer to live in blissful ignorance and even well-documented factual research such as what Ive shared on this forum cannot open their eyes to alternative points of view or possibilities. Oh well.

[Tim Ellis]

Steve Bryant, don't twist my words. I NEVER said I DON'T want light shed on this case.

I was asking MagicLaw "And why do you feel that it's your duty to shed the light in this particular case?"

Why HIM of all people. Someone who has never appeared on The Genii Forum before, suddenly leaps up and takes an interest in this specific issue.

[Tim Ellis]

As an aside, in magic what is right legally and what is right ethically rarely align.

That's one of the reason 'Magic Fakers' continues to grow and magicians continue to rip each other off with legal impunity.

[Steve Bryant]

Tim: I am not certain why that matters. If he is a friend of Wyrick, what of it? Harary's friends are certainly having their say. If I had tumbled to this information, I would certainly have provided it. Anyway, he has answered you.

[Dustin Stinett]

Well Steve, he hasnt answered me.

Twice.

Not accepting the premise of a question is a common tactic used by those who prefer not to answer the question either because they do not have one or the one they have damages their argument.

I have no issue whatsoever with Mr. Wyricks friends coming here and telling his side of the story. What I do find problematic is a poster hiding behind anonymity and reasons for posting that appear to me to be a rather thinly veiled agenda that is actually less than altruistic.

If MagicLaw were to object, my reply would be, It goes to credibility (his credibility in regard to his stated reasons for posting here).

Other than Franzs financial situation, I have not read anything I did not know. Am I biased? You bet; Ive admitted and explained it. Im biased for very good reasons that are based on personal experiences that remain undisputed. MagicLaw, however, apparently would prefer that we all remain behind the Veil of Ignorance which is reserved only for a court of law.

This isnt a court of law.

But even if this were, an amicus brief to the judge in the case might lead to him allow the jury to hear my experiencesand those of othersand take them into consideration during their deliberations versus using only these narrowly worded (and purposely so, as MagicLaw should well know) court filings he has supplied. So thats why I suspect MagicLaw is ignoring me. Hed prefer those statements not make it into the record by simply dismissing them as he has. He claims he is shedding light on the case when, in fact, he is purposely focusing a very narrow beam on it.

Dustin

[Richard Kaufman]

The heart of this issue is whether Wyrick was performing Franz's tank illusion prior to the date of the legal agreement in 2006. That would give credence to Franz's argument that Wyrick didn't give him much choice in the matter.

Also, Franz has stated that in allowing Wyrick to perform the tank illusion in his now-defunct Vegas show, he did not sell him TV performance rights, which are an entirely different thing altogether.

So, there are lots of reasons Franz may well be in the right, but the fact that he declared bankruptcy has nothing to do with them.

Is Wyrick from Texas? Because that's where MagicLaw practices law.

[Steve Bryant]

You're right, Dustin. It isn't a court of law. From the getgo, it has been a gang bang.

[Tim Ellis]

"Is Wyrick from Texas? Because that's where MagicLaw practices law."

What a coincidence.

[Roger M.]

Wyrick was born in Texas, and grew up there.

Linked to before, but perhaps requiring a re-read related to Wyrick and his demise:
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010 ... nge-magic/

.........Seeing as we're "just shedding light" on things, we may as well shed some light once again on this article detailing Wyrick's propensity to "borrow" other magicians tricks, and his fundamental inability to actually do any trick that requires personal skill.

[Brad Henderson]

Do as I say, but not as I do, right Magiclaw?

Magiclaw writes:

"I have made absolutely no statement or judgment on the merits of Mr. Hararys lawsuit or his allegations that the plane prop was not in working condition upon delivery."

REALLY?

In one post Magic Law writes:

As agreed, Mr. Harary acquired the airplane appearance illusion from Mr. Wyrick on an "as is" basis and he had ample opportunity to inspect the prop prior to consummating the transaction. When the deal was completed, Mr. Harary received possession to Wyrick's airplane illusion . . . Mr. Harary experienced buyer's remorse with the airplane illusion and tried to renege on the deal. . . Mr. Harary claimed the airplane illusion was in bad condition and that he had to spend a lot of money to repair it, even though he knew the condition of the prop before taking possession back in 2006.

Yet in your quote from the claim it reads:

"Pursuant to the terms of the bargain, Wyrick, who had been quoted $100,000 as the purchase price for the tank prop to him, instead agreed to exchange his plane prop to Plaintiff [Harary] in working condition

"That under the terms and conditions of the negotiations, Defendant [Wyrick] had represented, that the condition of the plane prop was in performable condition, and as such was not a prop needing to be reconstructed, but instead with only body work and paint, could be immediately utilized by Plaintiff [Harary] and others

After Plaintiff [Harary] had duly delivered the prop to Wyrick and after he had reconstructed his own version of the tank prop, Plaintiff [Harary] received the plane prop [from Wyrick]


We can't pass judgment, but you can?

Where from those "admitted truths" does Harary claims the prop was examined and it was delivered in working condition. That seems like something that should be settled in a court of law, not by you. How would you know he looked at the prop before hand? How do you know he knew the condition of the prop before hand? How do you know the condition of the prop as delivered?
Were you there? Did Wyrick tell you? How do you know if the prop were delivered in working order as claimed by Wyrick? Are you him? His lawyer?

You accuse Harary of experiencing buyers remorse? Is that a fact? How does one prove that? Do you have a statement from Harary expressing buyers remorse? Are you him? That seems like speculation to me - what about you?

You state:

"Ultimately, Mr. Wyrick did nothing illegal or unethical in performing the Water Tank illusion on Ellen, just as he did for more than 2 yrs in his live show in Las Vegas. "

It seems to me that the issue of the transfer of rights and what kind is anything but settled - hence the need for a lawsuit - but you have already acquitted Wyrick. And the statement re: length of use in the show seems like an insiders statement, just saying.

In the same post you write:

"Clearly, Mr. Wyrick and Mr. Harary have a legitimate legal dispute between themselves or the case would have settled a very long time ago. I assure you litigation is NOT a cheap resolution and 99% of lawsuits settle very quickly when there is evidence that one party is liable to the other. However, according to the docket sheet in Clark County, even before the stay due to Wyricks bankruptcy, the case was ongoing for over a year, which indicates that both sides seem to have strong reasons to believe in their legal positions."

Yet your next has you claiming:

"Mr. Hararys failure to pay his attorneys fees in the suit against Wyrick is, based on my experience, relevant because it may indicate that the legal and factual basis of the suit may not be as strong as it was cracked up to be at the beginning. Again, Im not passing judgment on anyone in this situationjust stating the facts and letting them fall where they may."

These seems to be speculation of the highest order and in direct contradiction to the post above. (And saying you're not going to speculate immediately AFTER speculating is not a 'get out of jail free card.' As they say, you can remove the skunk for the jury box, but you can't get rid of the stink.

Why the change of heart? You said that the ongoing nature of the suits proves both feel their positions are strong, and then claim Harary must believe his isn't. Did your handlers read the previous statement and feel it jeopardized their position?

MagicLaw writes:

"it just seems like Mr. Harary is a very frustrated and angry person who, by his own email admission, feels better inside when he gets to trash another person within the magic community. . . I simply do not buy Mr. Hararys claim of being ripped off or blackmailed because that is completely inconsistent with the papers he previously filed in the court. "

No speculation or judgment here here, right?

And as others have pointed out, simply because Franz did not try to sue for being given no other choice than to enter a deal with Wyrick, doesn't mean that didn't happen. Would a good lawyer put something into the claim that he or she knew couldn't be proven? Why offer the distraction? Doesn't it make sense to structure your claims based on what will best result in a favorable judgment? Simply because the unethical statement from Wyrick is not in the case file does not mean it didn't happen or didn't force Franz's hand.

For someone who wants to stick to the facts, you sure do a lot of judging and speculating.

[IrishMagicNews]

Ouch

[Ryan Matney]

I thought you were required to give your real name when you registered for this forum. I was.
So, Richard should know whether that is Wyrick or not.