NO. I'm sorry, Kim. It's simply not the same thing. To reiterate, I worked full-time on the recovery efforts related to 0384 and Karl's other cars and parts for 6 weeks in the summer of 1990. Led by Bill Victor (who is no longer with us), I worked along with others to secure all that we could of the remaining parts of 0384 and other items of value of his. We secured Mr. Kleve's possessions for him at a time and a place when he was no longer in a position physically and/or mentally to do so himself. I have tried to be as discreet on Fchat about this as I could out of respect for Mr. Kleve, but as another poster rather inelegantly pointed out, he was really in a place of diminished/diminishing mental capacity due to dementia by the time our recovery efforts commenced. The local Cincinnati car community was aware of his circumstances and stepped up. Bill Victor directed the efforts on behalf of his employer (a fellow car collector) and contacted a great many other collectors who volunteered whatever time they could. I was paid an hourly rate appropriate to someone in college at the time as were the others I brought in to help with the heavy lifting. We stored all the parts we could in a downtown warehouse where they remained for more than a year (I stopped tracking that detail at a certain point), safe, secure, and all free of charge to Mr. Kleve. My wages and those of my friends were donated to the effort by a third party. Mr. Kleve was never billed for that. In short, we all came together to help someone who needed the help. Karl was convinced that he was going to build a museum and put all of his cars on display. That was his mental state at the time. I remained in touch with him for the more than ten years that passed between then and me moving to new york- which occurred near the end of Karl's life. Needless to say, in all that time he didn't 'get better'. Dementia is a terrible thing. Karl Kleve was robbed of a prized possession- in part- because he was no longer in a place mentally to secure his physical belongings. He spent the remaining years of his life trying to recover 0384. Karl Kleve was never in the position- mentally- to be able to accomplish this on his own. He was taken advantage of by people ostensibly working to help him. According to the record, it would seem that Mark Daniels was high up or at the top of this list. Jacques Swaters does not get a free pass on this one. He had the ability and he *definitely* had the incentive to work this out, whatever it took. Instead, as his actions show, he kept his distance and he bided his time. I came on to this thread and this site 6 years ago to add what I could to this discussion. In the time that has elapsed I have felt compelled time and again to speak up for Karl Kleve in response to posts that simply don't fit the facts. This is one of those times.
I have been told by a well respected member of the community out of Europe that Swaters was told several times by some of the most respected Ferrari authorities in Europe that he should do the right thing and settle with Kleve but he was not willing to do so. Jeff
Thank you for this. What is interesting is that the Agreement which is referenced on Swaters web site is dated July 1999. Would you say that Mr. Kleve lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature of that agreement? In other words, was he competent to execute a contract? This seems to be a logical defense, especially if Mr. Kleve never cashed the check.
This is an interesting question. I can give you my opinion, but that's all it is. In 1990, he was living in a car in front of his house. There'd been a partial fire in the house (I think from cooking on a stove) and so he'd decamped to the car with his dog. The front of the yard had tall shrubbery affording some privacy. I found a letter in the house from Italy from Ferrari (the company, not Enzo). Ferrari was interested in buying 0384 from him for their museum/collection. This was of zero interest to him. Zero. He was steadfast in his desire to retrieve his stolen property. He manifested signs of delusion/naivete in 1990. I think 10 years into it (1999) his participation would have been coerced at best. I listened to the tapes again just now (Daniels in 99, Ken Crook in 2000) on youtube. He *sounds* lucid. In my opinion he probably had a scheme in his head where he would use the 'settlement' negotiations to somehow repatriate the car. That would be consistent with the Karl Kleve I was acquainted with. If that were the case, he would not have been of sound mind at that time. Again, 100% my opinion, but I did come to know him over those number of years.
I appreciate what you have said speaking up for someone you knew and helped, particularly as my father has dementia and needs the upmost care. As you say and from my own experience, some people take advantage of such vulnerable people and it is sad to hear this was the case with Karl Kleve. I have always respected Jacques Swaters for all his achievements and acknowledge that in doing so may be too quick to jump to the defence of someone who like Karl Kleve, is no longer around to defend his reputation. That being said, we tend to forget that Swaters was not alone as his 50% partner in the car, Lancksweert, rarely gets a mention in the proceedings but like Daniels, he was the one that actually concluded the negotiations. Similarly Lancksweert, like Daniels, is no longer involved in a dispute as that headache has been inherited by their heirs. You may well be right that the Swaters was biding his time or could have done something sooner but as far as he was concerned, a deal was eventually done. But the obvious question, given your first hand involvement in the summer of 2000, is, was 0384 considered sold at that time or was Kleve still seeking to recover the car ?. The paperwork completed in September the previous year and subsequent cancellation of the theft report by Kleve indicate is was but it is very curious that no one seems to know or ask where the money went. Kim
Hello Kim, Thank you for what you said about your family. It is not a hardship I would wish upon anyone. Thank you for reminding me of this. I suppose at this point we'll never know how the partnership played out but it certainly is pertinent to the Swaters side of the story. Most of my time spent around Karl Kleve was in the recovery efforts during 1990. I saw him many times after that but cannot say with any certainty if he ever 'changed his mind' and was willing to sell. *This may seem to be in contradiction to my post #1402 on page 71. I am of the belief (my opinion) that it is not an inconsistency: Knowing his mental state at the time in 1990, given the progression of dementia over time and the obvious duress of his quixotic efforts over the ten years I don't think it's fair to say a sale in 2000 is anything he ever *truly* consented to. Best Regards, Dave
Great post Dave May I point out that some people are "apologists" for what can only be described as a theft, based on what has been posted here, and that clouds what could be very clear. Now that both of the major principals are dead we will never know what Karl Kleve(KK) or Jacques Swaters(JS) were thinking. What is really stupidly obvious is what another poster pointed to "why didnt Jacques simply call up Karl and say look old boy the car is worth x I will give you half, directly for a quit claim." IMo that would have made all parties happy and no fraudsters would have seen a cent. Again I guess we will never know. Looking at a few documents gives a picture that really does paint a thousand words (well, a thousand posts). For the theft claims I would suggest the following, I am no lawyer and its simple enough for me to follow. (1) IN (427) OJ posted a scan of the limited power of attorney given by KK to Mark Daniels (MD) that did not in any way allow MD to actually sell the car, it only allowed for MD to receive offers and arrange the sale, on a commission basis. Thus he had no rights to be actually selling the car which is what he did, in the end. (2) Philippe Lanksweert (PL) signed the contract and then arranged payment based on the sale contract based on this LPOA, thus making the entire contract invalid (potentially). There has been talk that JS had another LPOA signed by KK that did allow MD to sell the vehicle, of this Ocean Joe (OJ) stated that he had it, it was a fake but it has never been posted (I for one would be interested to view it). (3) The contract was clear that moneys must be paid to both MD and KK, the cheque to MD alone ensures that the contract was never fulfilled. (IMHO) Again (IMHO) these three points means the contract was either at worst entirely BS or it was at best a legal contract between all parties that was never fulfilled. But then I am no lawyer and could be entirely wrong. But in my eyes this is a sideshow to the real game, which is stealing and fencing an amazing automobile. Throughout this thread many people have tried to claim, say, state, avow that the car wasnt stolen, it was rescued, it was replicated, it was blah blah blah. It was stolen in 1986 by two felons who were convicted (FACT) It was then sold by Guy Anderson to Michel Kruch for $4500 as shown on the bill of sale (post 247) (FACT) Michel Kruch then sold it to JS & PL (FACT) Which leaves a couple of questions (1) Did anybody own the vehicle between the felons and Guy Anderson? (2) IF not that makes only two prior owners before JS & PL? (3) The document in (post 615) shows that JS knew where the 375 PLus were prior to his renumbering of the car as #0394AM. All other 375+ were accounted for.... Didnt he? (4) Why if he so wanted to fix the issues he had with the stolen car didnt he just call KK and say I will send you a cheque for 1 million billion trillion dollars or whatever instead of constantly using agents?. Anyone want to answer my questions Timmmmmy
Sounds to me like there are some unanswered questions by a few posters here that seem to have an intimate and direct knowledge of the ownership history that hasn't been fully disclosed. If I were litigating this; this thread would implicate and involve a few people that I will not name...
You nailed that one Mark, I have read and re-read this thread and keep coming back to the same few questions as I posted in #1409 ........... As for He who shal not be named, is that MacBeth? LOL. Over and above my questions, this is one hell of an entertaining thread isnt it All the various shenanagins and skullduggery......It relieves the boredom for me in little old NZ. And the end-game for me after all this time, as I have posted before, is to simply see that Karl Kleve's heir Kristie Kleve-Lawson gets some compensation for the theft of her fathers car. I dont know her, dont know any or the principals in this, never likely to either, but I can read and it strikes me that some people shouldnt be in the car business with the ethics they have................. Thank god we have people such as yourself showing how it should be done. Timmmmmmy
there seems to be an underlying theme from the various courts/judges that is inconsistent with the basic merits, that a "stolen car/property cannot be legally transferred" there is the appearance that the courts have been subject to influence as evidenced by reversible errors and perpetual cloud preventing a correct transfer. Allowing for the cliché' "the court systems are as good as the money financing them"
I find it hard to accept that the Belgium Contingent would pay out $625,000 on a contract knowing it was BS or not checking that the persons signing the deal had authority to do so. What did they have to gain if they knew the contract was flawed and could always be subsequently challenged ?
..at that point they were after the "bits" and the Title only, although pursuing the lost engine as well thru other deals. IMO the car's value was north of $2M, by that time??? They were looking at the forged documents.
Sometimes the issue of title to stolen property turns on more than the simple rule that a thief cannot convey good title to his/her transferee. Sometimes a statute of limitation overrides the simple rule. If the victim's cause of action for conversion accrues and the victim fails to file suit before the statutory period runs out then the cause of action could be negated. The fact of the theft itself is not negated; rather, the legal right to seek relief from the theft is negated. Sometimes the real property doctrine of adverse possession is applied to personal property. This happened to the artist Georgia O'Keefe, who was held to have lost title to a stolen painting where the defendant was a good faith purchaser and he had openly possessed the painting for many years. Sometimes a rule called accession can override the victim's right to an order to return the stolen property. This happens where the stolen property (e.g., construction materials, or possibly the chassis and body parts of a rare car) are incorporated into a finished product (e.g., a house, or a restored version of the rare car), and cannot be separated from the finished product and returned to the victim. Some jurisdictions which do not follow the English common law might apply a very different rule, that a subsequent owner acquires good title unless the victim can discharge the burden to prove the defendant knew or had reason to know that his or her transferee lacked good title. Could Belgium be such a jurisdiction? Did #0384 ever pass through such a jurisdiction? The point is that the result in the case of #0384 might not be as easy as to apply the simple rule that the car was stolen from Karl Kleve and therefore he never lost title and therefore only his heir has title. The uncertainties of a complex case a case are what motivate people to settle. They motivate judges to encourage the claimants to settle. In this case the claimants did settle. The settlement agreement was inadequate to deal with subsequent events, and it fell apart. However, the fact that there was a settlement agreement is a strong indication that the claimants themselves unanimously recognized that this is not a simple case of theft and nothing more.
As an actual participant, I can help this thread to understand actual events. The Heads of Agreement ("HOA") that I and Lawson signed was signed simply as an expedient solution. If that expedient solution failed to materialize expediently, as actually occurred, we were happy to be back in court - that is what we agreed. The key term of the HOA was that we would NOT end our Ohio litigation until paid -- we were willing to PAUSE our Ohio litigation while the solution was implemented, but not END the Ohio litigation prior to being paid. IMHO, once Bonhams saw that it has such a huge commission, it adopted the position different than that stated in the HOA, thinking they could bully their way through it. Then the HOA expired. Then I and Lawson withdrew our HOA POA's to be sure no unauthorized "mistakes" occurred. But Bonhams continued to bully. Bonhams, Gardner, and Swaters counted on their HOPE that Lawson and Ford not win their appeal. Well, they lost and their London attorneys have yet to face that fact - you know who you are. The final analysis will be --- You can't sell property without the owner's consent. PERIOD. In my earlier post I mentioned that I would tell all about an "item #7". I am working on that post now. IMHO, it will expose Bonhams for what they really are . . . . you will see for yourself . . . . A new Ohio lawsuit has already been filed. A new London lawsuit is about to be filed based on my present info. Joe *
First, a recap of some prior posts that contain relevant documents. 2012.01.12 Gardner Vendetta Against Ford [Post 1230] 2012.06.04 Haas to Lawson – Gardner’s attorney says Gardner is “the person who pays the bills” – i.e. the financier [Post 1267] 2012.07.29 Ford to Bonhams – warns that when the HOA expires, there is no rollover to future auction [Post 1268] 2013.09.24 Ford to Bonhams et. al – the HOA expired, thus Ford withdraws his HOA POA [Post 1025] 2014.05.28 Appellate Decision – Ford and Lawson win their appeal and the Aug. 19, 2013 Order reversed [Post 1205] 2014.06.26 Ince (Ford’s Attorney) to Jones Day (Bonhams’ attorney)- documents that Bonhams does not have Ford and Lawson consent, documents that the Ohio BMV blocks any conveyance of title, documents that two Ohio cases are pending, demands Lot 320 be discretely withdrawn [Post 1210] 2014.06.27 Bonhams, via its auction, documents as a fact that a willing Buyer will pay 10,753,500 pounds stirling for the Ferrari (over $18,000,000 US). We contend some buyers knew of the Ince issues and did not participate, thus a “best price” auction did not occur and the bid would have been higher. 2014.07.05 Phatboy (Lawson’s husband) recap that ends in disbelief and dismay with Bonhams [Post 1173] Well, let me tell you what Bonhams tell us, via their attorneys, "happened" -- this is the item #7, and I quote: " . . . 1. Less than 72 hours before the Auction, a certain Sr. Zanotti made allegations impugning the Car’s title and authenticity. 2. Less than 24 hours before the Auction, Sr. Zanotti issued a claim against Bonhams in the High Court seeking various relief, including declarations impugning the Car’s title and authenticity (the “Claim”. 3. Ms. Swaters and Mr. Gardner, as vendors of the Car, authorized Bonhams to settle the Claim by paying the Settlement Sum to Sr. Zanotti (in £1 million installments payable on June 30 and before 31 July 2014 and deducting it from the Proceeds. [Elsewhere the letter defines the Settlement Sum to be £2 million.] . . ." I find the above incredible. It was concealed from Ford and Lawson until the above was stated in Bonhams' attorney letter of July 8, 2014. We of course asked for precise details and all writings. To date, Bonhams refuses to provide. Unbelievable. Thus the new lawsuit in Ohio. Joe *
as the cliché' goes "...one can't make this up..." (I'm rolling on the floor...) ...a super scammer shows up with some misdirection and "tap dances" his way through Bonhams, making the auction a greater sham than it was... back to the basic merits... NO viable transfer has been effected under an even greater cloud, allowing for full recovery of the car and Bonhams has exposed itself to greater damages ... ...maybe Bonhams' partner ( unless he resigns with prejudice before the sale ) will need to use the proceeds from his GTO sale in the next week or two to cover the assessed damages :=)
I seem to have missed the maneuver that Gardner employed to make his claim of 100% ownership of the Lawson-Ford proceeds. Other than by bluster and the filing of pending lawsuits has any court in Ohio or London affirmed this complete ownership stance? How did Gardner go from "financier" of the Joe Ford efforts to signatory of the HOA and the sole consenting party for the non-Swaters settlement with Zanotti. Jeff
More to the point, who the hell is Zanotti? Read this thread and never heard any mention of him...... And Jeff, aint that a good question.... Tim
Zanoti... needs to be some sort of puppet or shill for someone on the inside ... a new player devised for the scam... if one poses the question of how was he able to generate the faux documentation necessary to rise to a position of credibility... it only could happen with intimate knowledge...
The Cheesy Burger business is booming. Introduced a new line using Cavazonni cheese a specialty in the Italian market this summer.. for only $1.99 get 2 for only a dollar! The Ford Burger was a total loss, so its off the menu now. We are being forced to remove the Lawson burger sorry to say , officials found (BSE) they say its genetic.
Max, Please explain how Gardner went from a participant in the settlement and one of the signatories for the Heads of Agreement to 100% ownership of the Ohio Contingent interests? What court rulings, including venue, have ruled on this and has it held up under appeal? Jeff
