All I can say is WOW!! Anyway on another note, I can't see leaving auto parts rusting away outside in the weather. Maybe it just me with one man's junk is another mans treasure. Ago
Call me crazy, but how fitting is it that Mr. Vito's latest screed is post # 2000 on this epic thread? And then it is followed by that amazing little non sequitor from someone not previously heard from in this saga. Call me crazier, but Max's number 2000 reads very much to me like it was written by a woman, a woman who's really pissed off.
Well that would explain why the heiress two siblings were not interested in their share of the money. It was a long shot. People rarely walk away from a million+ bucks.
Dear Max Vito, I am in court, several of them, in a fierce legal battle. It started as a long shot. I post evidence and refer to numbered documents and actual testimony as I provide this board with a front row seat as this twenty-four year long stolen Ferrari saga winds down. FYI, my position, based on the evidence and the law, is that the HOA is not a legally binding contract and the "auction" was not authorized and will be unwound. Watch and learn as the lawyers do their work. You resort to colorful yet empty rhetoric. You post no evidence. You have no credibility. You confirm your shallowness as you personally slam me, my breakfast, my UK attorneys, the US, the Ohio BMV, the Ohio Judge, other Ohio public servants, my little MG, . . . LOL, you sound more and more like Gardner, whom I note is a "banned user" at present, and currently under crminal investigation by a Swiss court regarding Gardner's sale of a counterfeit Horch special roadster body to yet another . . . wait for it . . . Ohio resident. IMHO the board is laughing . . . at you. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
Come on!.. I got all dressed up at Goodwood to met at least some of the F-chat dinky toy collectors. it was a 'NO SHOW' Max Image Unavailable, Please Login
Is that your real hair OJ? Or is that as fake as your claims? I did some checking. You dont add up in this deal OJ. I see no logic in your position whatsoever. I can not see one thing that you did in this Ferrari deal that was not on the back of CG, blanketed in trickery. I am trying to have a vision, but no matter what you say, its a zero. I see what CG did in the court records, paying, location of the car, possession of the parts, delivery to London, agreement with Swaters, auction and paying the Kleve girl in full. But for you, nothing is material just that skill set that seems a right hander to me Mr. Fraud. I dont see one thing, you did , that gathers your normally $16,000 in gross income a year. No track record, nothing but failures. You are out of gas Sir. Let this thread die, you have lost! Go ahead, explain, how you did it. MAX
it's the misdirection in your image, you said you were going to be wearing your telltale Crocs, otherwise you present yourself right on point
Lost? Not so fast. Gardner, through his attorney, on 2014.06.05, filed a 41-page claim, with a 5" thick transcript, alleging MULTIPLE instances of Ford acting as Gardner's attorney over the course of years - the infamous "Tabs A - L." My 2014.07.07 reply was a 29-page reply, done "pro se", meaning by myself, without any attorney. This was Gardner's lynchpin argument -- Gardner argued that Ford would lose all contract rights to the Ferrari (and other contracts) because Gardner alleged that Ford was acting as Gardner's attorney. Well, the Florida Bar has just completed its investigation, finding no merit to Gardner's claim. Gardner has lost. I repeat, on this Gardner lynchpin argument with its 41-page claim and 5" thick transcript, Gardner has lost - a major loss. (And yes I will use this Florida Supreme Court sanctioned Florida Bar finding to rebut any allegation that I ever acted as Gardner's attorney, as will I use Ohio Judge Martin's "matter of law" conclusion that Herb Haas was Gardner's attorney. Max, please pass this on to Gardner.) Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
comforting news for OJ ... Max Vito (and others) just discovered that chicken soup cannot be made from chicken droppings... putting their claimed prowess as "chefs" in the toilet
brings a not too distant headline to mind...." Kun Hee Lee Samsung CEO drives a stolen Ferrari ( 330 LMB )" ... there was a Corvette that was recently recovered after similarly long period... there is no statue of limitations on theft... a theft remains a theft until fully cleared through the original claimants of the theft... Bonhams should take notice as well as the European contingent... they just discovered their choice of ingredients won't make chicken soup... continued reliance on blather won't help in successful litigation either...
Max/Chris: Are you claiming that Gardner completely fulfilled the funding portion of the agreement with Ford? Was this agreement not agreed to by Gardner and so signed? You do seem to get hung up on your allegation of Ford's declared income. That is not a relevant point in your argument. In fact you have an entire obsession with money.
There is only 2-3 million on the table tops, period. That is all the so-called Ferrari 375 Plus "100% documented" air-car-replica is worth in 2014, bottom line. If the chassis was in fact 100% factory original, and the chassis also did in fact have the original body shell installed, then the '375 plus replica' would be worth 25-35 million today. Everyone in the known has said over the years, and have also made open statements, that this 375+ Ferrari replica is a 100% fake. But, 100% fakes have value. How much would I pay? 2-3 million. I can build this same specs 375 plus "dead nuts" to original specs for 500K-1 million.
This delusional soul again. Guess his space ship crashed into each for a brief moment to get some more drugs.
JK, I been following this thread from the time it started, years ago. You can try to get me ban again if you like, but, please remember these following words. 100% air-car! Photoshop and neg's overlay fraudulent produced pictures do not document bullshi-claims. Period!
I'd like to drive that 100% photoshopped Air Car! Didn't know you could actually drive something that doesn't exist. Just like the original parts are magically not stolen because a wealthy European collector "Saved" it. Perry
It is and was very well done indeed. But, does it make someone want to put up 18 '+" million dollars to own it, NO. OJ you are 100% right, the big 'b' auction house (b is for BS) put up a major buyer's front (like always). I can see why OJ wants his cash back in the deal. Like I said, even air-cars have value.
According to Branch UPL Counsel Morgan's September 9 letter, under controlling Florida law a case of unlicensed practice of law must include at least three elements: (a) the Respondent lacks a license to practice law; (b) the Respondent holds himself out as an attorney or as otherwise capable of offering legal services; and (c) the Respondent has established an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law. She writes that UPL Circuit Committee 15B has closed its investigation based on a finding that element (c) is absent. The Committee made no findings with respect to elements (a) or (b). Counsel Morgan also implies that a finding of "actual public harm" could add sufficient weight to the balance to outweigh the absence of an office or other regular presence, such that it would not be an abuse of discretion for the Committee to keep the investigation open, even though element (c) is missing. In short, a one-off event of an unlicensed person holding himself out as an attorney, which causes only a private harm to a single claimant, does not constitute the unlicensed practice of law within the meaning of this three-part test. Regarding the use of this finding in the pending Ohio cases -- that Florida law requires a regular presence and that this element is absent -- it would probably be irrelevant to the material fact at issue in those cases, i.e., did Ford by words and deeds enter into an attorney-client relationship with CG? Even if it is relevant, it is not conclusive. To make this finding conclusive against CG would depend on the doctrine of issue preclusion, aka res judicata. That doctrine does not apply unless the party against whom it is asserted had been a party to the proceeding resulting in the adverse ruling, and that the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. It is doubtful that a private citizen who files a complaint with a regulatory agency, and thereafter plays no part in the agency's processing of that claim, would meet these requirements. I'm just going to hit "Submit Reply" now before I put everyone to sleep. I'm just adding my $0.02 worth to give members a little background on these things.
Thank you Bill The letter from the Florida bar does not actually state that Ford did not act as Gardners attorney in this particular instance. The letter simply states that no further action has be taken when "the alleged conduct by a Respondent is an ISOLATED incident without the intent by the Respondent to establish an office or other REGULAR presence in Florida for the practice of law". Do you agree with OJ's conclusion K
I agree that Gardner made a complaint to the Florida State Bar and that UPL Circuit Committee 15B decided to close the file without taking any action. It is always better to have a tribunal find in your favor than to rule that your facts do not support a claim for relief. But at the same time I don't know what remedies are available to the Committee, if it does find that a Respondent has engaged in the unlicensed practice of law. Specifically, I don't know if any of the available remedies serve to compensate a complaining party. (I would not be surprised if the only remedy available with respect to a Respondent who is not a member of the Bar is a civil fine, to be paid to the State of Florida and not to the complainant. I would expect this to be the case because a state bar committee lacks jurisdiction to sanction private citizens who are not members of the Bar.) Therefore I don't know one way or the other if a "conviction" of UPL in this case would have put money in CG's pocket. So I don't know if this result is a loss for CG or not. I am fairly confident that the Committee's decision to close the investigation, on the ground that Ford did not maintain a law office or other a regular presence in Florida during the course of his transactions with CG, will have no effect on CG's claims against Ford in the Ohio or London courts. Notwithstanding the Committee's choice not to act, it remains an open question whether Ford engaged in conduct which gave rise to an attorney-client relationship with CG. Or Ford could have merely entered into a garden variety service contract with CG. Both a breach of a duty arising from an attorney-client relationship and a breach arising from a service contract are actionable. The difference appears to be that a prima facie attorney-client relationship might shift the burden of proof from the complainant to the defendant. I really don't think it's that important to CG's case, whether Ford's alleged breach arose from an attorney-client relationship or a service contract.
amazing...he keeps on making things up... how does Max do it, in keeping his backside on public display ... more total BS... for criminal action to occur there needs to be a victim... no shortage of BS and no victim
