375+ # 0384

The language of the injunction entered by the court on December 9, 2013 in the Gardner v Ford case, case no. A1306451 (https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/attachments/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/1918689d1405220368-375-0384-injuction-against-ford-gardner-375-ferrari.pdf) is far from "quite clear." The operative term is in paragraph 3: "Joseph Ford is enjoined and prohibited from interfering in any way with Christopher Gardner's business and/or legal affairs, including but not limited to, the saled the Ferrari 375 Plus, No. 0384AM." What does it mean to "interfere in any way" with the sale of No. 0384AM? The language is so ambiguous that I doubt it's enforceable. A successful citation for contempt of court requires language of sufficient certainty that the alleged contemnor can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge that his conduct violates the order. The quoted language fails to meet that test.

What's interesting about the order is what it doesn't say. Paragraph 1 says Ford is enjoined from using or sharing any information acquired "in the course of his relationship with Christopher Gardner." Not "attorney-client relationship." Not "principal-agency relationship." Not even "business relationship." Just "relationship.

Paragraph 2 says Ford is ordered to return all documents that he obtained from Gardner "as a result of acting as an adviser in business and/or legal affairs with Mr. Gardner." Not "as a result of acting as an attorney for Mr. Gardner." Not "as a result of acting as an agent for Mr. Gardner."

It may be that the proponents of this language (if on the Gardner side) wanted to keep it as broad as possible. It may be that the proponents of this language (if on the Ford side) wanted to avoid a finding of fact that Gardner was Ford's client or that Ford was Gardner's agent. We don't know without reading the papers for and against the motion for the injunction. But one thing this order is not is "quite clear."

Just look at what appears to be the judge's own construction of the order (unless the judge is talking about a different injunction), in the transcript excerpts Ford has posted today. Ford represents these excerpts to be from the transcript of a hearing on January 17, 2014. That was one month after the entry of the above-quoted injunction:

"What the preliminary injunction gets to is . . . you have an existing case that's on appeal based on that document that was signed.

"What Ford is prohibited from doing, and all Ford is prohibited from doing as far as I'm concerned, is taking unilateral action about the title or spreading -- or doing some of the stuff that he [the judge is probably looking at Gardner's attorney Thor as he says the word "he"] says he's [meaning Ford] done that hurt the provenance of the vehicle. THAT'S ALL HE'S REALLY STOPPED FROM DOING."

The language the court itself uses to describe the substance of the injunction appears nowhere in the order itself. For the court itself to have a construction of the order that does not appear in the language of the order is the opposite of clear.

 

These are further public records and are currently enforceable by this same Court Order.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

laughable, attempts to appease the plaintiff, while the reality of the order is much the same as an old toothless barking dog, lots of noise but no bite... equivalent of telling a child the boogy man will get them... raised issues are not sustainable

 

Really, do all these new "No Posts" participants here think they are adding anything to the discussion?

Kleve's daughter's husband excepted....

It's like watching fireworks on the 4th of July....almost invisible launch trail, a big explosion and burn out...and then:

Next!!!

 

Pretty vague....as 180out covers, in his most excellent post, above.

 

+1 although I can't find a post from the Belgium Contingent

 

Don't think you'll find one - at least not with full disclosure regarding the source - but there was this:

The Case of ?0384AM? | Jacques Swaters

>8^)
ER

 

The only difference between the December 3 and February 14 versions of this order is that the signatures of counsel for Ford and Lawson formerly appeared under the line "Have seen and approved," while they now appear under the line "Have seen." I can only guess that Ford and Lawson asked the Court to make this change in order to avoid any implication that they had agreed to the substance of the order.

 

Why did Ford and Lawson try to cancel with Bonhams ?

I have one question totally unanswered :

​Since,​ all the parties ​involved ​​stipulated to a settlement agreement in March 2013 for the Ferrari to be sold, why was there a drive by Ford and Lawson to stop the car from selling in June 2014 ?

Simple answer without the color please !!!

 

Um perhaps because dates and contracts mean things.

You have an agreement to buy my house by Friday. And you decide to buy it 12 months later, but I have decided, in the interim, I no longer want to sell. Are you going to ***** and complain to try to buy it.

A lot can happen in a year.

And a contract with a deadline is one of the most sacred things in western culture. Once the integrity of personal property ownership and the integrity of a contract is gone, then either chaos or communism is all that is left.

If I own a car and give you the right to sell it by a time-certain, by what right do you think you have to sell it later? If I tell you I don't want it sold after a certain date, you have appropriated my property if you miss the deadline.

I am surprised this is even an issue.

 

Mr. Ford, I’m surprised to see you are behind the keyboard.
To straighten the story , I’m not C. Gardner. I’m not paid by anyone. What favour does Gardner need on this blog? Just a load of half informed non-Ferrari owners following a master of crime, as their best buddy . Careful of what you post and who contacts you over the internet, as a non-practicing lawyer of course.

I met the owners of the 375 + Ferrari. I was there at Goodwood when Bonhams sold it. I take a great interest in how a poor man like Joe Ford III , using the alias of his own sons can sneak into hob knobbing with the highest levels of the classic car industry , then to crawl in bed loaded with fleas.

I am thinking how Ford ‘is’ and then’ is not’ a lawyer, when ever it suits him. As a retired/failed architect , we call it being fired. And, as the court docs says, you are a ‘’car guy’’ with an MGB on blocks , overlooking a dumpster. How does an indigent with no bank account get an interest in a 375 Plus without a well planned fraud in the works? Please explain this to all of us.

Here in your deposition, the Court Ordered one; it says:

January 2014: Ford: ‘’I haven’t filed a tax form with the IRS since 2009 when my last income was $16,000 for my wife and me’’ I sell clams on Ebay as a source of income, big ones. Since 2009 I have made about $15,000 to $20,000 a year, in which I filed no tax declarations. I prepare legal contracts for my son’s Florida legal assistance company for fees, charging $100 at times. I own no real estate, I do not believe in banks, and I own a non-running MGB that is not in my name. My daily driver is a $2500 Toyota. signed Joseph Ford III.

Can you tell us at Ferrari Chat how a pauper gets a Ferrari 375 Plus in his name without being a total scam artist ?

In fact, in your disposition you have never seen the Ferrari, touched it, sat in it or paid Lawson one cent for it – nor did you show up to look Florence Swaters in the eye, face to face, and agree to settle an agreement you signed with Lawson and carefully conspired to derail the transaction to your favour.

 

(http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/114840-375-0384-a-39.html#post142515828)

Ocean Joe post with attachment http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/114840-375-0384-a-62.html#post143235322

I'm not sure what the story is, Mr. Nye. The best I can make of it, Mr. Gardner and Mr. Max Vito both went to the same really, really weird prep school.

https://www.google.com/search?q=finial&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=v6cMG8-Trn_TUM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcT9vuN9h1lAf_2ejK_yDixkwCGtLolIJ8TzV9wc3BLjEU5t1Oh2Ng%253B2084%253B2084%253BQhNZHDDTY4hJVM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FFinial&source=iu&usg=__08I0qxOnrNYdNVDPw2uilYJ3KuI%3D&sa=X&ei=mKbDU9zcN4KyyATk-YCwDQ&ved=0CDcQ9QEwAg&biw=1278&bih=680#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=v6cMG8-Trn_TUM%253A%3BQhNZHDDTY4hJVM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F1%252F17%252FTaj_Mahal_finial-1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FFinial%3B2084%3B2084

Best Regards,
Dave

 

Lawyers Zach Gottesman (right) and Robert Thuman with 0384

http://www.cincybar.org/news-resources/legal-directory.php/25011
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Christopher Charles
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Is he now, or was he ever, a member of any state bar association?

 

Just searched . . . no one by the name of Joseph Ford has ever been a member of the bar in Ohio or Florida. He is currently not active in Louisiana, but I have requested the bar association to see if he was ever licensed. Will keep you posted when they answer.

 

Max Vito,

If you are not Christopher Charles Gardner, then please identify yourself and whomever else posts on that account identity. You are parroting words I have heard from Gardner and from a Gardner attorney, so I have my suspicions.

Your agenda is apparent as you attempt to smear me with lies. If you had been a member for a longer period of time, or read all the posts on this board, or read the entire "disposition," then you would not ask such loaded questions.

So attached are a couple of documents. The first document is a $250,000 Ferrari Daytona deal I did in 1988, using Gardner as a witness. I was the buyer. I traded a brand new Ferrari Testarossa, black/tan, for the disassembled Ferrari Daytona. In 1988, getting the Ferrari factory to sell and jet a new Testarossa to the US in the midst of the Ferrari boom going on at the time was extremely difficult. I did it using Ferrari of Los Gatos. Gardner had brought me the Simmons lead (Gardner's former employer - a chrome plating shop) and I split some profits with Gardner. About 20 years later I buy a majority equity position in an inheritance rights and claim in an Ohio lawsuit over a Ferrari 375 Plus. The value at the time I became involved is maybe $100,000 (high-risk), which is part of what I paid as consideration. The seller Ms. Kristi Lawson knew that once I became involved, my unique skill set, guidance, and investigative skills would be of high benefit - the "prize" would grow. If you have my "disposition" you know this, and more.

The second is an email from one of my former clients. As you can see from this document, people come to me for professional and historical analysis of very rare and valuable Ferraris. Regretably, this partucular former client did not disclose to me all of his flea-infested baggage, so I have had to publicly cut all business ties with him. See post #1025.

Now you know how I became involved - because of my history, my reputation, and my unique skill set.

Enough for now.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Very funny. Made my day

 

OJ, were it me, I'd redact your signature there.

You can't leave a checkbook anywhere, with THIS crowd.

 

See my earlier post....

 

Architects KNOW finials.....

BigTex
University of Texas at Austin
College of Architecture

1976 -1981

My GPA could have been better, but there was Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Red and Yellow Rose nightclubs....

To MaxVito,

You might stop and consider that "retired" is NOT the same as "failed"...there are a number of valid reasons a retired individual might show a very low legitimate annual income, and drive an older car.....MGBs are collectible, you know....

The chrome bumper ones, anyway...!!

 

Mr. FORD...Who I am is not important.
Who you are is important to all of us here on Ferrari Chat.

You’ve held yourself out there as Joseph L. Ford III , Lawyer extraordinaire, last boy scout, white knight, hero and savior, do gooder and now we we see now you’re a total fraud.

I found Joseph L. Ford III lawyers certificate, out of date and worthless, and last week the State of Louisiana launched another investigation against you for practicing law without a license. They made reference to the Florida Bar and the State of Florida has launched an investigation into Joseph Ford III for the unlicensed practice of law, and that case is very active as we speak. (Felony Fla. Stat. sec. 454.23) (case # 20141086 (15B) – Joseph L. Ford – the unauthorized Practice of law).
You can reach the investigator at – 954-835-0233, ext: 4148. Go ahead and give him a call.

I also see you are running a legal ad service under the name Student Loan Helpers, LLC and the administrative contact is Joseph Ford and coincidently a Joseph Ford is also the registered agent of American Credit Shield, and operate a site called US Legal Club.
You also run a scam offering legal advice as US Legal Club


It’s great to see your post, we all know you acted on behalf of Gardner , the principle for 25 years. And in this Ferrari deal you did the same thing, but this time you got caught in the middle of your last sting.

**I love this line from Ford:
" Now you know how I became involved - because of my history, my reputation, and my unique skill set"

Best run and hide..They are after you!

 

Max,

I'm surprised you acknowledged the contract. In it, Gardner witnessed Ford's transaction.

Regards,

Art S.

 

A "high risk" share, indeed, considering the car had left the country, was hiding under a bogus VIN, and beyond recovery.

At least, to most people.

You know Max, the great thing about America, is that a court case number is just an appointment to speak with the Judge.

Given the way I drive, I get them ALL the time.
I don't think Joe needs to worry.......

As your own posts show, someone is trying VERY hard to sling some mud on him.
Been there, done that, bought the souvenir shirt, and came home.

 

*=
flobert
Chris Gardner
mbzgurl
Max Vito
Onebugatti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8fjyxM7DgU

Sorry Max.. for that last line, 'Best run and hide..They are after you!', was that directed towards Ocean Joe?
Or is that your internal monologue?

Asking for a friend.