Not at all. I have no personal knowledge of events other than what I've read. My link was simply posted as it addresses some questions that have been asked and as you said is a decent explanation of the event sequence. I know Barney casually but not well. I wouldn't be surprised if the case goes either way but personally I wouldn't have run that add without overwhelming proof that it was accurate. Rob I don't know if he's suing anyone else or whether or not SCM will be suing Goldstein. Best
Give Barney the money...after reading that article, I find myself having thoughts of contempt and hatred. I even ridiculed him a little bit...privately, though (although, my dog was in the room). Question: if the police felt they had enough probably cause to initiate the process of confiscation...which, then took over a year to sort out... ...how is a small publisher supposed to do a better job of vetting the information? I cannot believe that the entire case was built around an advertisement that was printed in two small-circulation publications...without a GREAT deal of investigation and fact checking. If it was, that's where Barney's beef should be...I notice he's not suing the state, though. If the state police had enough evidence (that seemed credible) to convince a judge to sign a warrant, how can anybody expect FML or Cavallino to have smelled the rat and refused publication? I wonder how much Barney's real estate taxes have gone up since the investigation?
Whilst I wish not to comment on any other aspect of this case, I will say two things: Marbella was, and still is, a very very corrupt town, recent mayors have found themselves in prison due to strong ties to mafia, the story reg the shop and its owner (presented by Goldstein), current day circumstances aside, is not hard to believe at all! The second being, I, personally, feel 'Barney' may be lashing out at the wrong people. I understand he may be an innocent individual in all of this, and feel hard done by, but this US culture of suing anybody that sneezes too close to you is obsurd! His own current legal actions cast him in a worse light than the ad or story ever did. As not to become embroiled in a heated debate, I agree with nobody here, I hope justice prevails and everybody that is entitled to something, gets it. Regards Mike
Jim, There are at least 36 documents on PACER regarding the case. I'd prefer not to purchase all of them. Can you recommend one or two? Regards, Art S.
The criminal complaint that got the car seized is scandalous, perhaps even criminal itself as it swears various things that didn't pan out, yet got 0799 seized and just about got Hallingby charged with felony larceny. It was sworn to by an *anonymous* police detective. Well, at this point in the cycle, we can clearly see that the detective wanted anonymity to protect himself from future liability suits. If his veil of anonymity is lifted someday, then I expect him to be sued civilly and perhaps charged criminally. But...the *state* had a sworn complaint so the state is of course going to take some action and then let the court sort things out, as that is our judicial process. It's not like Hallingby was denied due process. The process was followed and he got his car back. So the above would explain why Hallingby isn't suing the state. Now, the anonymous detective, the European scammer, Gerber/Goldstein, those are different matters altogether. And when it comes to the Ferrari publications, if they can't vett an attack ad, then they aren't supposed to run it. That being said, they probably don't have to be perfect or thorough, but some prior due diligence is required if they are going to publish an attack. The more due diligence, the better their defense if the attack turns out to be libelous/slanderous. But, even if they were reckless enough to perform no due diligence, in my opinion the publications should be slammed with less financial liability than the Euro-scammer who paid for the ads, and perhaps even less liability than the anonymous police detective who swore out the false complaint (though then again, maybe not).
The UK system is so much better. Not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/20/scientist-libel-law-henrik-thomsen
Does anyone know if either publication contacted Hallingby directly on the allegation prior to running the ad? It was quite clear which car was in question, and also should have been quite clear to each publisher who the current owner was that was being referred to in the ad. Certainly if he'd displayed his cars at Cavallino before, Barnes should have had his contact info somewhere handy. Considering the trouble he went to on his own to verify legitamacy of the car prior to his purchase, he'd have been able to answer any question the two might have had. That seems to me like the only point where I would claim they were a bit reckless in their actions. I guess another question is, do you hold these two publications to a higher standard than say AutoWeek or Road&Track, that might be targeted for printing a similar advertisement, but who would be less familiar perhaps, with the car in question or its current owner? Of course, maybe those two publications have tighter standards on what they will and won't print. >8^) ER
Indeed. At no point did I mention it was contained to the US. There are many many great things the US has given the rest of the world, this however, is a disease that has originated in the 'American Dream' philosophy and has spread like wildfire, worldwide. This is my opinion and that will not change. I bet I could spend hours online pulling up as many obsurd cases of compensation claimed and most will come from America, just like this one. Being sued for printing an advert... pathetic. Regards Mike
No but if someone claimed for example that I had lied about any of the evidence I presented or had forged it I would.
I recall my first read through of the '0846 papers' being met with amazement that any owner would be so forthcoming and detailed with their analysis and photographs for one car. I was fairly new around here at the time and didn't quite understand all the fuss at that point, but certainly do now, and I remain convinced of the proper theory on its history is the one Jim presents. >8^) ER
Which raises the question: did Hallingby promptly register an objection with FML and Cavallino at the time the ad was run, to defend his good name and rightful ownership of the car ? I've also been wondering whether business liability insurance, which FML and Cavallino presumably maintain, would cover their litigation exposure - although this was a far from routine ad.
Ha! If someone doubted the authenticity of the green federal 0846 document that I mailed to you some time ago, they would have to contend with the Secret Service! Image Unavailable, Please Login
I am currently reading documents from plaintiff and defendant sides. There is more to this than may be generally understood by us here. Some degree of due diligence by Barnes and Rousch appeared to have been performed prior to their publishing of the advertisement. Plaintiff's side makes allegations that appear to have some holes in their logic. As these documents were privately sent to me it is not my place to post them for public consumption. People that require jury trials instead of arbitration make me question things. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, have not studied the law. Jeff
Keep in mind that there were/are two legal avenues. One is the criminal side pursued by the scammer against Hallingby. Hallingby won. The other is the civil pursued by Hallingby against (so far) FML and Cavallino. You are probably referring to the civil trial, above, in which FML and Cavallino asked notable Ferrari expert Marcel Massini if the "stolen car" ad was making a reasonable charge. It's my understanding that he said yes (probably based on the history of the town/shop where the legal sale occurred). Was that enough due diligence? Possibly, but that's no slam dunk...especially considering the nature of the charges being made and the firsthand experience that FML and Cavallino had with 0799 over the years before the stolen car ad was published. I'd like to see both of those 2 sides reconciled. In my opinion, Hallingby's efforts and ire should instead zero in on the actual Euro-scammer, the anonymous Connecticutt police detective who filed the bogus larcency charge report against Hallingby, and perhaps even the "inside" former owner in Switzerland (Gerber??).
I've no doubt that Marbella and other parts of Europe suffer from corruption. But this unfortunate truth complicates the case for the original owner. If officials in that country have made the car's transfer legitimate, right or wrong, it's up to that original owner to correct this or recover damages there. In my limited view, it would seem that the original owner is lashing at the wrong people himself. As is often the case when people are out significant money after a crime, they will try to find any way possible to recover their loss. That could be true of Mr. Hallingby, who may have been slandered, just as it could be with Dr. Gerber, whose long-gone partner may have sold his property without compensation.
Aye. The sale in question back in 1993 was legit. The scammer and/or Gerber/Goldstein have to explain why they didn't collect an insurance settlement. The story from Europe so far is entirely unbelievable...alleging that the insurance settlement was "turned down" because they knew that 0799 would "turn up." The problem with that story is that the insurance company will always trade back a recovered stolen vehicle in exchange for getting back the settlement that they paid out. It's even required by law in most places. So people always take the insurance settlement on their stolen cars up-front. There is no downside to taking the insurance money. The more likely explanation is that they either didn't have insurance, or the car wasn't stolen. Insurance won't pay off in either of those instances, after all.
As SCM pointed out, he may have simply been an "inside owner" under Swiss law. This would leave him off the title despite partial ownership with the "outside (titled) owner" and would make him ineligible for any insurance settlement. He may also have reported it stolen then but, if the outside owner was involved in its transfer, insurance and authorities would have pointed him straight to civil court. I just have a feeling the guy might have been screwed by someone in '93 and is now (wrongly) trying to recover his loss from the current owner. All speculation, of course.
It's a shame that a good person is implicated in this crap. It's the 2000s you would hope that this kind of old world vs new world lawsuit junk would be so transparent by now that they would be afraid to try it... And we (US ATTOURNEY G) would be smart enough to understand it and protect our citizens... Makes you not want to buy anything that is old even if you have "title" in hand...
Aye. That's the best explanation for why there was no insurance settlement. The car wasn't stolen, just a busted deal between the inside and outside owner over in Europe. It would also explain why the inside owner has been unable to post any titlework/registration/property tax records/insurance payments, etc. (since 1994). He doesn't have the records because he wasn't paying the bills because the car had been sold, not stolen. You don't keep renewing your registration on a car after you've sold it! ...but European law is clear that the outside owner has full rights to sell the car. Any disagreement with that legal sale is between the inside and outside owners in civil court, not between the old inside owner in Europe and the new legal owner in the U.S.
You've talked about a "scam". Was the scam simply an attempt to shame Barney with this add and extort money from him that they knew wasn't owed by stating things in an add that they knew weren't true? The US Court clearly ruled that Barney is and was the rightful owner of this car. Jeff In the papers you mentioned is there evidence that either Cavallino or FLM consulted a lawyer before running this add? Is there evidence that they contacted Barney before running it to get his side of the story?
I saw no mention in the papers (there could be other documents though) that attorney(s) were consulted prior to publication. They do make clear that the author of the ad is a Swiss attorney. I did not see anything about having a phone call with Hallingby by either FML or Cavallino prior to publication. In the various papers there is a statment that a prior US sale (pre Hallingby) was stopped by the buyer because of questions on this car. This buyer has someone that is frequently on F-chat. After reading the documents, again there are probably tons more out there, I would venture to say that FML and Cavallino publishing the ad may not have been the smartest action they ever made in their lives. From the other side there is certainly no $5,000,000 worth of damages from the two of them. Some of the statements on what "damages" there were are, in my layman's view, petty; some hurt feelings don't sound like real damages to me. Jeff
