Again, this has nothing to do with my stance that the car may or may not have been stolen. I did not defend Goldstein, I did not protect Goldstein, etc. I don't know who Goldstein is and don't care because it has nothing to do with the search for the truth about this car. If SCM has an issue with something that Goldstein posted, then let Keith Martin comment on it. As much as I enjoy SCM, it's not my responsibility or intention to defend him either. I'm not taking sides. If you're suggesting that, because I'm a moderator here, I should remove or edit Goldstein's post where he accuses a business of shady practices, my response is that Rob hasn't removed or edited numerous such posts in the past. He gets his legal advice from someone much more qualified to give it than I. I simply moderate as Rob wants his site moderated. Now, if anyone wants my PERSONAL opinion (which no one has yet asked me about), then I would say: 1. If I were Roush or Barnes, I would have anticipated a potential lawsuit and refused to publish the ad. Regardless of whether or not it would have been legally acceptable to do so, anyone can sue for anything - and they often do. Even when you're right, a proper defense is usually expensive and the outcome is never guaranteed. 2. Gerald and I have had our differences in the past and I know that some people here have had issues with John and Alicia Barnes. Even so, this lawsuit could be devastating to both. It would sadden me to see anyone who is so dedicated to this hobby be wiped out by this thing. 3. I have reason to believe that the car in question was reported stolen as early as 1993. If this is an attempted scam on the part of the European party claiming ownership (as some here suggest), then it has been in the works for a very long time. To put my remarks into perspective: I am not a lawyer or legal expert, I am not a publisher or publishing expert, I am not a Ferrari owner or expert and I know little or nothing about law enforcement in either the US or Europe. I do not own FerrariChat and am not employed by FerrariChat. I am not a doctor and have never played one on TV.
Such a claim makes no sense. Europe inspected and exported 0799 in 1994, after the claim about a 1993 stolen car report. Did Euro officials miss their own stolen car report?? No, the more reasonable explanation is that the car wasn't reported stolen to the police, but that the car was claimed to be stolen in a civil lawsuit between two European parties. Such a non-criminal *civil* claim would not be in Interpol's files when checking cars that are being exported. The 1993 stolen car report claim...also fails to explain why U.S. officials permitted 0799 to come into the U.S. without being confiscated. So again, the more reasonable explanation is that there was no such criminal complaint made back in 1993. Certainly the original paperwork for such a stolen car claim hasn't been posted here or admitted into the various court cases swirling around. Sometimes a car in Switzerland will be officially owned by one person, the "outside" buyer, yet possessed by an entirely different person, the "inside" buyer. Someone anonymous who used the arrangement to keep his name out of official Swiss records. It's not out of the question that 0799 had such an arrangement prior to 1994. In such an arrangement, the outside buyer has all of the official titlework/registration, along with the Swiss legal right to sell the car. Now, regardless of the above, 0799 was indeed sold with the legal title/registration paperwork. The car is Hallingby's. But, if such a Swiss inside/outside arrangement was in play prior to 1994, one could understand that the "inside" owner could harbor resentment for 0799 being sold. He might even sue various players involved back in 1993 such as the titled, official outside owner, the disreputable car shop that made the proper car sale, etc. Heck, he might even scheme to recover 0799 years later. Hmmm... But what he wouldn't have...would be the proper titlework. He'd never be able to produce the official documents. Does anyone see a recurring theme here about the inability to produce the official documents? Only the rightful owner, Hallingby, has been able to show those. Trend? Theme? Clue? Bueler? Bueler? Class? Class? Anyone?!
Wayne/Dave/Rob -- Perhaps you should push back a little bit and LISTEN to what Jim is saying. I'm not a lawyer either. However, I have worked with enough attorneys to know what you and I think doesn't amount to diddlysquat. All that matters is what a Judge might eventually rule. FML and Cavalinno have already been sued over this. It would probably be wise to get some legal advice ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE before continuing to put yourself in the line of fire. I'm guessing Gerald and John wish they had. Dale
I think that the Roush's and SCM being sued is horrible. I don't care what the legalese is, it is just not right.
No, it's right. SCM didn't carry the ad, after all, so SCM didn't get sued (FML did, though). However, it would be nice to see a little compassion. Let them apologize for running the ad and end the lawsuit, I say.
Do you know if SCM was asked to run the add and said no? As an aside I beleive Barney's latest filings claim that he's out of pocket a lot of money as a result of this and that the adds may have contributed to/caused these damages.
The beauty of FerrariChat is the open discussion. While this isnt at any end, I think Barney would find this thread beneficial for the support he has received. Without keeping this thread open then we would be no better off than Cavallino or FML was a posting of one side (possible false accusations) against Barney. It would have been left at that as last anyone saw of this thread. Now the question is at what time do we freeze this thread if there is no new information or a freeze simply to stop speculating and wait for final court decisions. FerrariChat.com isnt a publication, it is a coffee house containing tables with Ferrari enthusiasts sitting around talking. To be a publication and subject to the same liability we would need to take editorial control and liability over EVERY single post on FChat approving one by one.
No, sorry. I don't know. Yes, that's technically true, but we all know that it is the actual scammer who placed the ads who bears more of a burden...FML and Cavallino are simply easier to collect from. Sad though, to think about two Ferrari publications getting crushed while the actual scammer gets off scott free.
Was the car impounded by police as a result of the ads or before publication? Perhaps I'm not understanding the sequence of events but if the car was impounded prior to publication then im not seeng any actual damages. And if anything the car is now more valuable then it was prior to this incident because now it's got a clear title and a pretty neat story to go along with a happy ending for the owner. I suppose that I have a tough time accepting that the plaintiff has a claim that he personally was in any way damaged other than perhaps deprived of the use of a car he probably rarely drives. I would also thnk the plantiff has been counciled by his friends that he risks alienating himself from other collectors and enthusists regardless of whether he wins or loses his case, and has probably either decided he won't be, or else he feels there is more at stake. ( just an opinion as to what I see as the two possible outcomes)
As I read the pleadings after and as a result of the add. Others? As for "alienating himself" I think that's a stretch and who cares? While some may care about Cavallino and FML there are definitely those who don't.
Running the Ad was ill advised, unless there's some type of Insurance Coverage involved. I check my $5M Blanket, before putting a shovel into the ground! Hard to say, if they can countersue the Ad writer, probably not in Europe. A real Tar Baby.......
Not true and you should know it. Check the search and seizure warrant (http://www.sportscarmarket.com/downloads/ferrari-warrant.pdf ), the police files and post #83, #86, #98. If you dont agree, post the Swiss title of Ferrari 0799 signed by Gerber/Friedli instead of manipulating the facts.
The answer is yes. Check the search and seizure warrant, paragraph 6. http://www.sportscarmarket.com/downloads/ferrari-warrant.pdf Affiant Van Tine confirmed through Interpol that the 1958 Ferrari 250 PF, with Vehicle Identification Number 0799GT was stolen in Marbella, Spain between the dates of Mai 1st, 1993 and September 30th, 1993 and was reported as such to Interpol by the Swiss Police. It remains listed in Interpol as stolen.
Not true. Read post #80, there is no Swiss title mentioned for Ferrari 0799. Would a serious person buy a car from a well-known criminal and mafioso? Why does nobody check the mafia connection?
goldstein - here's a simple question for you to answer. If all this story you allude to is true, why has 0799GT been returned to Hallingby now? >8^) ER
He didn't buy it from "questionable sources", it came with all required Legal Paperwork. You are going to find it VERY hard to prove any allegations of "who knew what, and when" against this current owner, and there's been many a litigation unravel over that for money that makes this case look like chump change. THAT's most likely the reason he is still behind the wheel. Although if all you say is true, concerning the report of the theft to Swiss authorites in a timely manner, Interpol "missed this one at the Dock"..... I don't think you'd get far in recovery, with them.
Note also, (in the Affidavit) the use of the term "known truthful and reliable source" or language similar....... IF proof is provided, this was in fact, not the case.....it VOIDS the whole document.... Unconstitutional Search and Seizure.......something like that.
Sorry Jim, I am missing your point here? To me it reads as an implication that myself and 'goldstein' are the same person, which is definitely not the case. If you are saying something like - the declaration doesn't contain details that would cause it to be kept by the authorities, or returned to the party claiming it was stolen - then I agree on that. Facts got pretty thin in that department, and it was mostly about the size of a garage and what color doors it has. I was hoping goldstein would explain it to us, because if all of his claims were true, current and factual then the car should have been put on a plane to be returned to whoever is claiming the initial theft, but that's not what has happened. The fact that it is back in the Connecticut garage that "is not listed at the Tax Assessor's Office as being part of the Hallingby Property" seems to make anything he says here now a moot point after that. >8^) ER
Goldstein, the stolen car report on the SCM web site was filed in 2008, and did indeed cause Hallingby's Ferrari to be seized. No one doubts that. What everyone, including the judge who **RETURNED** the Ferrari to Hallingby doubts, however, is that the car needed to remain seized. In fact, what the judge determined was that Hallingby had the proper paperwork. Hence, 0799 was returned to him. Now, here-above you ask *me* to post a Swiss title! Look kid, your own sworn affidavit in that link to the SCM website says that "there is no title for a vehicle of that age." Asking me to then provide you a title is preposterous! You are the one who has been asked to show proof of ownership of the car, which you can not do. This is your problem, not mine. Your cross to bear, not mine. I'm quite satisfied that the car has been returned to Hallingby. Happy that ownership has been shown to and agreed by the courts. If you want to change the above, then you'll have to actually show your own title to the contrary, which you *can't* do. That's why you already lost. It's why you'll lose again. Asking me to post a title isn't going to help you. I'm not Hallingby! I'm not the Euro-trash con artist who is trying to scam a free vintage Ferrari. What you have yet to do is show evidence of ownership. What you have yet to do is show evidence that 0799 is listed in Interpol's files from 1993 to date, save for a *claim* of the above in a 2008 U.S. affidavit.
No one checks such a thing because Hallingby has the proper documents for 0799, whereas Gerber does not. Thus, the judge ordered 0799 returned to Hallingby, which has been so done. http://www.sportscarmarket.com/downloads/Court-Order.pdf
I read them, and they show only that a police detective who wishes to remain anonymous *claimed* that 0799 was listed in Interpol as stolen. The police files in CT do *not* show an actual Interpol document listing 0799 as stolen. What you've shown is one man's word. A claim. A criminal charge and complaint. But that's not evidence. Evidence consists of things like actual bill of sales, titles, tax payments on property, etc. If you have such evidence, then post it. You clearly know how to post. What you are missing, however, is content.
