Good analogy. Let's tweak it just a little to better match the situation. To be fair, the neighbor is also waving around some papers claiming he has Power of Attorney to sell Bob's car. READ THOSE PAPERS!!!! When that neighbor does not give you the originals of the POA, or the dates do not make sense, then you cannot rely on them because YOU KNOW SOMETHING AINT RIGHT. And pay the full amount on the contract as directed by the contract. If the neighbor says "hey buddy, can you cut the check direct to me" then YOU KNOW SOMETHING AINT RIGHT. Also, many other guys were offering Bob as high as $7 Mil for his car in 1999, while the FBI had contacted experts and put a value on what was stolen in the millions. So, if the neighbor offers it at a ridiculous discount, AGAIN, YOU KNOW SOMETHING AIN'T RIGHT. Don't forget, Lancksweert and Swaters are seasoned car dealers. They don't get snookered unless they deliberately allow, or are part of, the snookering. But Kleve need not prove any of that to prevail. Kleve simply says to Swaters "show me the docs that grant the neighbor authority", and I can tell you the docs (there are two) DO NOT support Swaters' claims. In fact, one is so blatant that it is a red flag that would immediately KILL the deal for any reasonable buyer, especially a seasoned car dealer. I may put up a site with docs. Hopefully Swaters will post them since he is already up and running, and they were filed with the court in the 2.12.10 Complaint Exhibits and then later in a 7.19.10 Swaters Reply. *
* Good recap. There are even more red flags and examples of suspicious or worse bad acts. Can my attorney use that as their closing argument?? I agree, this will be remembered more than his last race . . . . . . . . . **
Here are the January 24, 1989 Green Township Stolen Car Reports Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I hope you all remember a film called "The Paper Chase". Between that and this case I am extremely please I never decided to go to Law School. I never would have even made it thru the first semester. However this whole thing I think is fascinating and this is largely due to the involvement of "ocean joe" and the others with their astute questions. Thank you all so much. I will continue to follow the development with great interest. My only problem is that the file on 0384AM is starting to take up more space than anticipated. just one man's opinion tongascrew
Daniels had a video taped deposition of Kleeve authorizing him to act as his agent in the recovery and restitution of the car, I saw it! I also recall that Kleeve did not want cash compensation for tax purposes but cars in lieu of same. One thing that seems to have been overlooked is the original engine for the car. A mid-west collector has/had it and also had an agreement with Kleeve not to sell or transfer the motor to anyone without the OK from Kleeve. It was that fact that kept the Belgians from continuing. Plain and simple they wanted the motor...period.
Apparently the motor has been recently united with the car.....it's mentioned in here 'somewhere".....
That may be. I can not over emphasize the fact that most of what I know I was told by someone else so it can not be viewed as absolute fact. What we had was a classic "catch 22" case; Kleeve would not give his O.K. to release/sell the motor to Swaters until he had the cars he wanted to settle ownership claims. The Swaters group would not pay for the ownership rights until they knew for sure that they would have the original motor as part of the deal. I am assuming that Daniels did not have the funds to buy all sorts of cars for Kleeve in hopes of making all this happen. Additionally I was told that Kleeve was not sure which cars he wanted. As was previously mentioned Kleeve was an odd character at best. He lived in a home that had been partially burnt and cut the roof off of a rare and valuable Bugatti to get it into his basement? It is my belief that nobody negotiated in bad faith and that this was a difficult deal at best. My two cents!
Kleve's heirs had the right to buy the motor, Swaters convinced the seller of the motor 0384Am was his car - so on those terms the motor went to Ferrari Classiche. The motor was delivered to Ferrari Classiche last year , restored and fitted to the car. In the YouTube video, its the motor that's running. I am wondering if Swaters bought the motor himself as Lancksweert was officially out of the 0394AM partnership....oops I mean 0384AM , or did Swaters hire Lancksweert/Daniels as agents to buy the motor? Could Swaters have paid with 2 checks or one? Or did he use an out of state attorney , maybe from Atlanta, to anonymously purchase the motor for him? Did he collect the motor the day he paid and signed the purchase agreement or did he let it sitting for a few years and then try to get it from the heirs ? Inquiring minds what to know ! ''A man has to know his limitations'' - as Detective Harry Callahan said.
Well maybe because at that point he didn't have the piece of paper that gave him title to #0384AM. He can hardly have been fooling Ferrari or any serious historian who would have known that #0394AM was a made up number. I personally see that as neither here nor there.
Please Sir read the entire thread. Not to offend but this defense is an admission of guilt. Fooling historians PLEASE they are reading this thread. Please look at post #118 And reply. A Ferrari sanctioned event ?
I HAVE read the entire thread. I made no statement of guilt OR lack of guilt. I merely conjectured on a possibility to explain the renumbering. You obviously don't agree with my conjecture. We are all entitled to our own opinions. the Court will no doubt in time lay down the official position. Until then most of what is written on here is conjecture.
Francis, It may all be conjecture but, to me, you are contradicting yourelf. If you just posted that a possible reason that Sawters changed the the car's identity from 384 to 394 was because he could not prove ownership. I agree with your line of thought as this is the most logical conclusion based on the information posted thus far. However, in my mind, this does not support a hypothesis of 'good faith'. Regards, Art S.
Francis, Historians WERE fooled because they trusted Jacques Swaters. They trusted Swaters. I can give you THREE names, and I am just getting started: Keith Bluemel, Doug Nye, and Pietro Carrieri. These guys are the Ferrari historians who misplaced their trust in Swaters. For examples of how Bluemel was fooled, see: http://www.barchetta.cc/All.Ferraris/garage-francorchamps---50-anni-di-passione---report/index.html http://www.ferrariownersclub.co.uk/happenings/2002/february/50_anni.asp For Doug Nye and Pietro Carrieri being fooled, see: Ferrari 375 Plus, by Doug Nye and Pietro Carrieri, 1994, ISBN 3-905268-05-1. And we have already posted earlier herein (post #87) how the counterfeit numbers thwarted Belgian officials and Congressman Mann's efforts in 1993-4 to recover Kleve's stolen Ferrari. So, in any reasonable view, renumbering to a counterfeit number DID fool many during those years, DID thwart recovery efforts, and doing so was simply wrong and dishonorable. And if someone will do that type of wrong, and act without honor, it is my view that that someone is also capable of engaging in a sham settlement, deliberately paying the wrong guy, deliberately accepting docs that are not the originals, deliberately accepting docs with contradictory dates, using untraceable unusual Swiss accounts instead of their own checking accounts, taking shortcuts, etc. Finally, for all those who hope that justice prevails, a court will soon sort this all out, officially, with a ruling that will be heard around the world. I can see the headlines now. *
We can only hope the hammers at Classiche are busily hammering away, so that when the restored car is returned to Kleve's heirs, Swaters can be zooming around in a NEW #0394!! Maybe he can borrow the stamps from Piper, you know, the "A", the "B" and the "C"... (#0900, for those who don't know)
I'm not sure if you are being serious, or not. I would be interested to know if it is, indeed, illegal. I am fairly sure it is illegal in the US, no? I apologize if I sound ignorant on this, but it certainly makes a difference, both in the courts eyes and to the possible character of Swaters. George
In the US, legally its not acceptable. Technically you can't even remove a chassis plate during restoration under the laws of most states, but its necessary to do a proper restoration or to protect the tag etc. I would imagine the EU is the same. I was just being cynical - we all know a dozen or more stories of cars that were raced, wrecked, rebuilt, and their cast off parts were rebuilt into new cars with the same serial numbers. But back in the day no one ever was questioned, punished, etc. This case is a different issue, but its maddening to see that the 'copies' eventually attain a status and value all their own.
The opposite is also true, regarding VINs.... You can apply for a new one, if you submit a proper applicaton you "built' the car.... Which, in THIS case would be certainly true...... I could have gotten the VIN #0394 legally registered for road use, in Texas, even today.
Wow, really? I don't think we can do that in OH. If you apply for anything resembling homebuilt, they give you an assigned vin that mimics a modern 17 digit vin. And getting back OT, I suspect that's what would have happened to 0384 had it shown up in Ohio wearing 0394 numbers...it would get a big foil sticker that says "State of Ohio Bureau off Motor Vehicles, assigned serial number". Wonder what that would do for its provenance Can you get it through Classiche with that attached
Thank you. I just wanted to be sure. If it is also illegal in the EU, then that would certainly have been known to a, long time, car dealer/collector. Hmmm. George
Of course, as to THIS counterfeit number on THIS factory made Ferrari, we all know that once the car is a Ferrari, then only the factory can issue a number. Anything else is a fraud. I bet it violated both Belgian law and violated duties as a Ferrari dealer when counterfeiting / altering the Ferrari VIN # assigned by the factory. Remember, the car was stolen as Kimberly's 0384AM, the Belgian authorities paperwork had already identified it as 0384AM, and it was bought and sold as 0384AM. *