Story of 250 GT Cabriolet s/n 0799

There have been recent news stories of a number of valuable cars that have been identified as stolen through insurance databases and returned decades later. Two cases of restored Corvettes come to mind: Each was stolen from young, uninsured owners in the 1960's. In both cases, the cars recently underwent routine inspection, were seized, the rightful owners were found, and they re-took possession of the cars (with one car being in significantly better condition and with an upgraded motor). The previous owners, thinking they had purchased the cars legitimately and with clear titles, were left screwed. But all of this happened because the "new" titles (presumably) didn't exactly match the VINs, the cars were documented as stolen through the police in this country and the original records of the theft were on file.

The problem I have with this case is the mafia "X-factor" cited by Goldstein: If a crime in Europe involving the title took place (conning the owner out of the title), I'm not sure there is any recourse except through the original perpetrator. If the cars were given new titles and removed from Europe through the bribery of officials and/or judges, it would seem recourse would be a huge long-shot (proving government corruption). But if the current owner (and previous ones) were somehow a knowing "co-conspirator" in a crime, then perhaps the claim could be made.

To my eyes, the effort by Goldstein to portray Halingby as a "co-conspirator" appears to be an effort to retrieve the car or leverage it for a settlement, as the other options are dead ends. If a "mafia" figure did deceive the original owner or bribe officials, there's just nowhere to go (and there's too many stories to be believed). Given the number of hands 0799 has passed through under legit title, and the public nature of Halingby's ownership and display of the car, he would clearly seem to be innocent of any conspiratorial nonsense.

So, that said, where is the original title from when it was "stolen"?

 

Of course agreeing with you and directing my additional question at Goldstein.

As you point out the court read that and still ruled that the car belongs to Barney.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Best!

 

Ditto.

 

Precisely.




And I might add, Goldstein is also going to have to show that Gerber paid property taxes on 0799 before, during, and after 1993...because someone who *sells* a car stops paying property taxes, whereas someone who still owns a car, even if stolen, must keep paying taxes on it.


And an actual Interpol document from 1993 is going to have to be shown.



But the rub is that if Goldstein or Gerber had the above, the car would be back in Switzerland by now instead of being ordered by the courts to go back to Hallingby.

 

Yes. He's Paul "Barney" Hallingby.

 

I agree with your Bottom Line.

Goldstein has still failed to answer why, or provide any evidence what-so-ever that, his statements about SCM are anything but reckless disregard for the truth.

Rob

I know him as Barney. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Safe to say. Publishing comments that align with the court order to return 0799 back to Hallingby would hardly qualify as some sort of PR campaign to cover up an alleged theft.

Conversely, what Gerber, Goldstein, and some anonymous police detective have done, with possibly another Euro-scammer involved, could come back to haunt all of them. Hallingby is already in position to take down FML and Cavallino publications for merely running the ad that squares with Goldstein's line, after all.

By the time IP's are retraced and further lawsuits are filed, the above will be a bit more obvious.





*would be nice to see the actual scammer go down

 

Maybe I am missing something. How does the running of an ad place these two publications in any different position as any other publication running an ad that turns out to be false advertising, etc? Do newspapers that run a message in the classifieds that may turn out to be part of a crime get charged as an accomplice? What about infomercials that turn out to be scams? I can understand if the Roush's or SCM knowingly ran a false ad, but this does not seem right. I would fully agree that Hallingby has a right to recover any damages, but from the person running the ad.

 

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/Legal-Files/2010/January//

 

Jim,
thank you for the link. I still think that there is a long legal stretch, here. When the author of the artile in the link states "According to McCraw, publications are generally responsible for their entire content. " That seems very broad, to me. What if the Ferrari Market Letter published an ad for a car that was stolen and that they were unaware of this fact. To continue, someone buys the car. Then it is discovered that the car was, indeed, stolen, the perpetrators now being long gone. Is The Market Letter going to be sued for not knowing that the car was stolen? It would seem that some would say that the law would hold them to this standard. That is really stretching it in my opinion. I do not think that a publisher of ads has a duty to verify the accuracy and or legality of every ad they run. This must have been litigated in the past.

 

The difference is that a publication takes on *some* liability for an attack ad. The "stolen car" ad wasn't an ad to sell a car...it was an ad designed to cause problems for the legal owner.

Well, you had better be correct if you are going to call an owner to task.

In contrast, an ad that merely tries to sell a stolen car isn't slandering/libeling anyone. In a sane world the liability for that sort of car ad would be limited to the value of the car.

 

Here's the thing. I saw the original add. I thought it was weird especially appearing in Cavallino Magazine as this car had already appeared at Cavallino as well as many other events.

It wasn't hidden away. I assumed that if Cavillino ran the add, after allowing the car to appear in their event they must have vetted it's content and that the add was truthful.

FML is an expert in Ferrari serial numbers and had attended events where the car openly appeared so I felt the same when I saw the add in FML.

As I understand it this is one issue before the court.

Cheers

 

Interesting. Is there an inherent contradiction in that Halingby must be an easily identifiable public figure to be harmed by the ads (in that he is not mentioned by name) but can't be defamed under the statute if he is a public figure?

 

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2009cv02223/case_id-341944/

 

The pleadings touch on this but also remember that the car's serial number was mentioned in the add and owning a car doesn't in and of it's self make one a Public Figure.

 

Thanks. As with much of the law it comes down to definitions.

 

This whole affair is upsetting. I really hope that FML and Cavallino are not irreparably harmed as continuing businesses. I enjoy both publication immensely and feel that both have made long term meaningful contributions to our community.

I recognize that Halingby would be very angry over all this.

It would be nice if a level of reasonableness could prevail between Halingby, Barnes and Rousch. Hopefully there are not some sordid details that would expose real collusion.

Jeff

 

I don't generally hang out in the same circles as Mr H, but I do try to pay attention here and elsewhere and had never heard of him before the lawsuit was filed and I read the SCM piece, and of course this thread.

By what standard is someone measured as a 'public figure' - perhaps that is one point to ponder for the judge in this case?

>8^)
ER

 

http://www.tcextra.com/news/publish/lakevillejournal/Rare_Ferrari_returned_to_Sharon_owner/1114200.shtml

 

I understand that the ad itself was/could be slanderous, my problem is with the fact that the Market Letter didn't seem to be calling the owner to task, the initiator of the ad was. In regard to the ad for a "car for sale", my impression is that if a publisher is liable for the content of ads, why would they not be liable if an ad was used in any other crime or act of negligence. It seems that there is an assignment of responsibility, or duty of care, that I do not agree with. I fully understand and admit that this is a personal opinion.

 

Jim,
I understand your perspective with regard to FML and Cavallino having seen the car. I guess I would have a greater problem with them refusing to run an ad only on the grounds that the car was not in hiding. What if the evidence in this situation was going the other way? I completely sympathize with the owner of the car, but I think the cause of his loss is with the initiator of the ad.

 

Jim,

The article you link to, which by the way has a decent explanation of the event sequence, does not indicate to me "sordid collussion" by the publications. Nothing is here about contacts being made by the publications to Halingby prior to publication, nothing is shown to me that there is anything where the publications did more than accept a paid for ad.

Maybe there is something in the discovery process that is specifically damaging or maybe you know "extra" from your friend Halingby that has not become public.

Jeff