Shocking for Maranello not to just make this go away. It's rotten to the core. Where is the Ferrari Lawyer Letter asking for Kleve to sell the title to them???
The Ferrari factory's role since early on is almost uncertain right now. IMHO it does not look good. I am told that Ferrari's NY attorney in the 1990 time frame was Kay Collyer & Boose and I am waiting on confirmation/denial on that. That lawfirm certainly posed as if it were Ferrari's attorney when Nick Ackerman of Kay Collyer & Boose wrote Karl Kleve on April 2, 1990 about 0384AM and offered him $85,000 for his title rights. That letter is below. I have seen an unsent draft of that letter that mentioned Ferrari of Belgium -- it was not sent and was reworded to delete references to Belgium and project the image of Ferrari -- the connotation (deliberate misrepresentation?) being Ferrari of Italy, especially since it is only Ferrari of Italy who has a factory in Maranello. FYI - The date on the Bill of Sale from Michel Kruch to Swaters/Lancksweert is March 15, 1990. It should be known to all in early 1990 that there was no doubt whose car, and which car, had been stolen -- i.e Karl Kleve's Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM . . . not 0394AM. This knowledge actually can be traced back to an earlier date due to the well publicised November 1989 Atlanta Federal trial, or the March 1989 arrests by the FBI, or the even earlier Ferrari Market Letter stolen car ads. IMHO, there was a deliberate pattern of deception that spanned from 1991-1999 with the entire 0384AM versus 0394AM ruse. And there are other deceptions as well. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
That's the Received Stamp date, at the top of the letter, by Ferrari. That is indeed quite the interesting question, how that would have made it to Swaters, with or without the underlining by unknown parties. Amazing Ocean Joe!!!
Since these documents at least look very real, it really seems that they never had an interest in clearing this up. At least not in the way, they should... more in the way, they thought it would also be in their interest. The letter from Collyer & Boose clearly speakes about 0384/AM. Not that it would be important, but my neutrality begins to crumble...
In 2006 this lookalike 0392AM was exhibited at the Galleria Ferrari in the person of 0384AM. Image Unavailable, Please Login
That is is Karl Kleve's stolen Ferrari 0384AM. The Scaglietti nose, the notched headrest, and the unique 4 decals (recent vintage races) on the windscreen confirm it. Kleve's car 0384AM did run in the 1954 Carrera Panamerica. 0392AM did run, but it did not have a notched headrest. I have several b/w pics of it, then and now, after its New Zealand restoration, with no notch. In your pic, was it displayed as 0392AM? Do you have pics of that display card? Thanks. *
0392AM did not use the notched headrest the whole of the race, but did have it. And yes, the display suggested the car to be 0392AM. Copyrights unknown. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Joe, Sounds to me like you may have grounds to attach Ferrari into the legal filings as some form of co-conspirator. Jeff
I had not seen that display card. I am appalled at that the Ferrari factory would stoop so low. The timing make sense because in 2005, Florence Swaters was just hearing how Kristi Kleve, daughter and administrator for Karl Kleve's estate, had the Ferrari as an asset in the estate. Kristi was now in probate court, and she intended to pursue it. Thus, it appears that for a second time since the original theft, yet another serial number is being used to conceal this stolen car. At least they chose a number that actually did exist LOL! I wonder what the real owner of the 54 Pan Am winner thinks about that display. Innocent parties don't do things like that. * This act comes from the same outfit asked visitors to Ferrari Classiche to destroy their pictures. * Funny and sad at the same time. Joe *
I know this case is not fully played out and all and thus no final judgement is possible.... But I gotta say, this mess and the way Ferrari has treated Jim's privateer efforts with P4/5C over the past year or so, it all leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. Good thing I am not in the market for a new supercar, I think I would buy a Porsche. Terry
WTF does this post mean and the following replies? Could be a simple using the display plaque, but I thought in 2005 the 0384 car was in Belgium, and was not in Maranello until 2006. Was it a rough Saturday or just two many Long Island Teas? Clean it up for the blind.
I'm more about the GO and less about the SHOW. Lambo or Pagani is tons of bling, but on the track a GT3RS 4.0 would make them look silly. Nothing takes a track pounding like a P-car. YMMV and off topic... but you asked. Terry
Ocean Joe, The developments with the alleged Chinetti F2 166 might make your stance with the factory even more interesting. Jeff
http://jacquesswaters.com/the-case-of-0384am/ Interesting reading, documents, and photos on the Swaters web site. Gramps
In my minds eye I see the Factory carefully measuring and replicating the car, maybe make about six of them........ With Classiche stamps.....
Wish I had more to report than "my humble opinion" as below: Opposing counsel is fighting a very technical fight, to the nth degree, running up the tab, avoiding anything that has to do with reaching the merits of the case, fussing and raising tempests in teapots at any opportunity. Such tactics speak volumes to me. Swaters doc now show he knew car was stolen BEFORE he purchased it on March 15, 1990, thus he can never be an "innocent" nor "good faith" purchaser. So much for his being truthful on NPR in 2010. Still waiting to depose other side. FYI - Swaters website has several "inaccuracies" - all self-serving - what are the odds? I could use some pics if anyone has them of the car being restored in 1991-92. Joe
I took these pictures (it's obvious that my main interest was the 246S) during a visit to the Garage Francorchamps on 23 January 1994, maybe they can be of some help.
Of course his docs are self-serving; so are yours. That's what makes law-suits. Sometimes truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. To what specific doc do you refer that supposedly shows he "had knowledge" before the purchase?
