Jump to content
Frequently asked questions... Read more... ×

Madonna 2Pac letter expected to sell for $300k MINIMUM

18 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

After a long-winded legal battle to halt it from being sold, Madonna's love letter from Tupac Shakur is finally going on the auctioneers block.

And due to the hype around the document - which Tupac wrote the Lucky Star singer from prison - the value has soared, with experts predicting it will be sold for in excess of $300k.

The opening bid alone is $100k, set by memorabilia company Gotta Have Rock & Roll.

 

black and white eXcellencé did that...

 

t6q42wlr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 300k for a sheet of paper :chick1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All she did was confirm it's authenticity by trying to sue, now it will make more than it ever was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

All she did was confirm it's authenticity by trying to sue, now it will make more than it ever was. 

That Streisand Effect reign just won't let up :jonny2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's expected to go for over 300 grand, she should just buy it herself. I'd sit in that audience like c'mon bitches, you aint got my wallet and you'll never be as petty as me so let's get bidding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Can't_M!ss_This said:

If it's expected to go for over 300 grand, she should just buy it herself. I'd sit in that audience like c'mon bitches, you aint got my wallet and you'll never be as petty as me so let's get bidding

no money for faz gostoso ha video no money for a random letter. :cm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The queen of pop, ha value>>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can someone explain to me the circumstances how that lowlife named Debby or Darlene Lutz ended up possessing Madonna's property?

 

This letter and 20 or so other personal Madonna items were supposedly awarded to that scum in a court case in 2004. Seems to me like an assistant taking advantage of her access and stealing items, then having no principle other than money and selling everything including third party intimate items that she has no moral right to own without permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Raiden said:

Can someone explain to me the circumstances how that lowlife named Debby or Darlene Lutz ended up possessing Madonna's property?

 

This letter and 20 or so other personal Madonna items were supposedly awarded to that scum in a court case in 2004. Seems to me like an assistant taking advantage of her access and stealing items, then having no principle other than money and selling everything including third party intimate items that she has no moral right to own without permission.

she also stole madonna's DNA and kept it for many years. (like collecting pieces of hair she found in the bin)

 

I don't know the details, but to put it simple: the problem is that after a certain amount of years, you can't halt someone selling YOUR property or belongings when you didn't tell the authorities items of yours have been stolen. madonna probably had no idea this woman took some of those personal items and this woman just waited long enough to sell them. the ****ty thing is that she makes it sound like she has every right to do this and makes M to be the bad guy. Like, seriously?

 

I can't believe some people suggest M to buy this herself.. to pay 300k for her own letter.. her own DNA..it's sick and this woman shows how sly and vile she is. and this is someone madonna used to trust. no wonder she's so careful, people around her always try to betray her. Oh, and Christopher Ciccone (her shady brother) basically arranged this according to rumours. he probably wants $ as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, wanderlust said:

she also stole madonna's DNA and kept it for many years. (like collecting pieces of hair she found in the bin)

 

I don't know the details, but to put it simple: the problem is that after a certain amount of years, you can't halt someone selling YOUR property or belongings when you didn't tell the authorities items of yours have been stolen. madonna probably had no idea this woman took some of those personal items and this woman just waited long enough to sell them. the ****ty thing is that she makes it sound like she has every right to do this and makes M to be the bad guy. Like, seriously?

 

I can't believe some people suggest M to buy this herself.. to pay 300k for her own letter.. her own DNA..it's sick and this woman shows how sly and vile she is.

I read on the internet that Madonna never actively gave that woman any of the items she is selling. There had never been a transfer of possession. That's what happened here. They were all things that Madonna or her brother left at that scumbag's house at separate times on visits, and forgot to fetch it back. I mean if I left my umbrella at a place I visited, can they legally own it? Then all of a sudden that bastard is declared the owner of the item in a court case when she was fired. Sounds like a perversion of justice to me. Some sort of an activist judge or jury went on a power trip --probably wanting to show how they stand up to rich celebrities-- and legally rubber-stamped an act that amounts to theft -- the theft of personal property that Madonna never gifted in a deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madame X is a lucrative poet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raiden said:

I read on the internet that Madonna never actively gave that woman any of the items she is selling. There had never been a transfer of possession. That's what happened here. They were all things that Madonna or her brother left at that scumbag's house at separate times on visits, and forgot to fetch it back. I mean if I left my umbrella at a place I visited, can they legally own it? Then all of a sudden that bastard is declared the owner of the item in a court case when she was fired. Sounds like a perversion of justice to me. Some sort of an activist judge or jury went on a power trip --probably wanting to show how they stand up to rich celebrities-- and legally rubber-stamped an act that amounts to theft -- the theft of personal property that Madonna never gifted in a deed.

To prevent people from sueing in perpetuity, there are limits in years defined.

 

Where I live, no insurance claims after 3 years, 10 years on most civil cases, 30 years on stolen land,...


If the thief wasn't sued before the expiration date, the stolen goods became legally owned by the thief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raiden said:

I read on the internet that Madonna never actively gave that woman any of the items she is selling. There had never been a transfer of possession. That's what happened here. They were all things that Madonna or her brother left at that scumbag's house at separate times on visits, and forgot to fetch it back. I mean if I left my umbrella at a place I visited, can they legally own it? Then all of a sudden that bastard is declared the owner of the item in a court case when she was fired. Sounds like a perversion of justice to me. Some sort of an activist judge or jury went on a power trip --probably wanting to show how they stand up to rich celebrities-- and legally rubber-stamped an act that amounts to theft -- the theft of personal property that Madonna never gifted in a deed.

I'm confused as to how so many of Madonna's items ended up at her home in the first place? There were so many rare pieces of memorabilia, like costume sketches and Madonna's handwritten notebooks for Blond Ambition, and cassettes of unreleased recordings. I'm not clear as to how these items would have ended up at Darlene Lutz's home?

 

By the way, when those items were originally auctioned off in 2017, my understanding had been that Lutz had been allowed to stay at Madonna's home while she was out of town and was somehow in a position where she had access to these items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Benji124 said:

I'm confused as to how so many of Madonna's items ended up at her home in the first place? There were so many rare pieces of memorabilia, like costume sketches and Madonna's handwritten notebooks for Blond Ambition, and cassettes of unreleased recordings. I'm not clear as to how these items would have ended up at Darlene Lutz's home?

 

She stole those items.

Who would even care is someone stole randoms items as letters, bra or even some hair? :rip: :skull:

 

Back then, those things hasn't any value. Today, they're like treasures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raiden said:

I read on the internet that Madonna never actively gave that woman any of the items she is selling. There had never been a transfer of possession. That's what happened here. They were all things that Madonna or her brother left at that scumbag's house at separate times on visits, and forgot to fetch it back. I mean if I left my umbrella at a place I visited, can they legally own it? Then all of a sudden that bastard is declared the owner of the item in a court case when she was fired. Sounds like a perversion of justice to me. Some sort of an activist judge or jury went on a power trip --probably wanting to show how they stand up to rich celebrities-- and legally rubber-stamped an act that amounts to theft -- the theft of personal property that Madonna never gifted in a deed.

There was another, separate legal dispute between Madonna and Lutz over the sale of some paintings where the 2004 settlement freed Lutz from any further obligations, and Madonna's things which she didn't know Lutz had have been deemed subject to that settlement. She probably would have lost otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites