375+ # 0384

it is difficult to give any credibility to what Max Vito posts... he uses smoke and mirrors as cover while he spews worse than a crippled skunk...

 

a recent post here mentioned September 2 for the next court date in Ohio

 

Thank you

So what is the effect of the 2011.8.2 order on your 2011.4.5 deal with Gardner ?

Are you claiming the deal void or does Gardner still get half of your 70% ?

Otherwise, why did Swaters commission a forensic expert to prove their own original sale agreement a forgery given they are suing you under its terms

 

Up until the January 4, 2013 London fiasco, Lawson was going to honor the effective 90/10 split on a post adjudication basis. Then Gardner misrepresents his interests to Bonhams and then undermines Lawson/Ford positions by going against what his own attorney Haas proposed - Haas' April 18, 2013 Proposed Order that stayed Ohio proceedings, lifted the status quo order, lifted the restraining order, and allowed us to ship the parts to London. Perhaps the arbitrator will say I owe Gardner the $75k back or will say the $75k begins to offset what Gardner has cost Ford because 1/2 of that 20% net gain (70% to 90%) would have been mine. Gardner, with his ill-conceived vendetta, not only cost himself $1,630,000 but he also cost me $1,630,000 when Lawson abandoned her post-adjudication offer, if one uses the hammer price as a metric.

That is a decision for the arbitrator. Because of the Gardner vendetta, the London fiasco, and Gardner's making of less than 1/3 of the required financing payments, I suspect the arbitrator will only award a reimbursement to Gardner and will not reward him with any share of the prize. Then there is the auction and Zanotti related misrepresentations, and the less than "best price" auction setting.

We always knew to hire a forensic document expert, so Swaters had to hire an expert too so that we could have that "expert versus expert" battle. Swaters' attorney hired a well-known and well-established expert. Swaters' attorney did not know what his expert would find or conclude - but I bet Swaters' right-hand man knew. Rarely does your opponent's expert prove your case - well, it happened here. It was odd that Swaters paid two checks to get Mark Daniels to do what he did, suggesting to me that they knew what was really going on and knew that Karl Kleve was not part of it.


Joe

*

 

If everything is as neat as you suggest, then why isn't the new owner driving his car around and the seller spending his millions? Hmmmm.

 

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143237565-post1261.html

 

Thank you again

But Kleves signature on the settlement agreement was witnessed by an Ohio State Notary

Was that forged too ?

 

His prized possession? Looks a prize parts car to me ! The car was 100% more important to him stolen than in the field rotting away.

With all those sugar plums dancing in his dementia ridden head, manifesting signs of delusion/naiveté on top of greed he was well known for , I am sure he forgot where he hid the Swaters payment. Sounds like a family dementia chromosome to me.

Either he was a freaking genius, leaving his Ferrari to rot in a field, Getting $695,000 in the day it was worth $100,000, and setting Swaters to restore the car so he ‘’leaves’’ it for his matching chromosome daughter to go get the third payment. Ford must be her new sugar daddy with the same delusion as Mr. Dementia. Can’t wait the next surprise.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Translated:
It was OK to steal the car, because it was rotting away and the owner had dementia.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Why not stop that fruitless discussion?!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Sorry Buddy, no cheese burger for your post. You haven't the facts. All that’s here in the thread is pleadings in the High Court of Ferrari Chat by Ocean Joe – the mastermind. In the real time Court, before the Judge : Ford lawsuits were settled and all appeals exhausted. Ford and Kleve-Lawson, the crux of the fire in the theater, did nothing in their selected form ie : London High Court to stop the sale. They took no action, action was required. Missing the sale date in September 2013, part of Ford’s conspiracy to get out of the contract, was not a material way to break the contract. In London Court, no judge would see this indigent rogue as serious and when uncovered that the 2013 sale was sabotaged by his own making. Basta !

Ford’s problem was if the car sold, Ford would get nothing. His entire payoff was attorney fees Gardner refused to pay him . He was a lawyer practicing with no license and currently under a felony criminal investigation. Lawson, who is basically from the same cut a wacko cheese as her ‘’mad-scientist’’ dad, aligned with Mr. I'm not the kinda guy you cheat, in a contract, or in a court and likely through the use of his magic wand they mated. Together they were out to screw everyone involved in the settlement, murder Bonhams , kill the sale and try to pick the pockets of the performing parties in the shuffle. Love will do strange things to two people.

Ford makes his case here in this thread, in a make believe world IMO. In the real world, in the real Court, the Ohio Judge is quoted after two days of Ford’s cross examination on the bench ‘’ Defendant Ford is one of the most evasive witnesses in the Court’s experience’’.


Place your bets.

 

+++++1!!!!
It`s getting tiresome……….

 

When was this? If it is from the judge that was overturned by the Appellate Court then it means little. If from another more recent appearance then that could have more credence.

 

Come on, Walter, I just got fresh popcorn. Don't give up now!

Marcel Massini

 

OK, MAAAAY THE SHOW BEGINNNNNNNN….(again, and again, and again….)

 

A person who is confident in their legal position does not have to resort to such childish posts to make the point. If you have the facts, argue the facts.

It seems to me that these posts where you spew forth venom--are you really saying that Kleve's daughter and Ocean Joe are having an affair?--only hurt your arguments and call your credibility into question.

 

+1 on the stolen car thing. People can do with their possesions as they wish, whether they aren't of sound mind is irrelevant. It isn't up to some collector to say it's better to steal it and have them give it a resto or not. Not their place to decide.

And the forged paperwork. Seems there are others trying to screw people here. And so much venom in the responses from some parties. Makes you wonder, all bluster no proof??? A huge ax to grind?? A lot of hate for a non-direct participant. Also, the agreements for sale had expired, no?

Perry

 

+1.

Speaking of facts, the fatal flaw that Gardner cannot overcome, despite his repeated failed efforts and hearings, is the fact that Herbert Haas, Gardner's attorney, approved and filed with the Ohio Court the current Ohio Title that lists Ford and Lawson as the owners and does not list any lienholder. Then, months later, Zac Gottesman, Gardner's new attorney, does the same by approving it and seeking an Order that it be sent to Bonhams.

At the time, Ford had already placed Gardner in default for Gardner's failure to finance as agreed. Haas was aware of this. Thus, Gardner had lost his right to be a lienholder - I referred to that right as a double contingent lienholder right - if you failed to finance, you lost your lien. Thus the title was correct as issued and as filed with the Court -- by Gardner's own attorney. And then, months later Zac Gottesman, Gardner's new attorney, argues that the exact same Ohio title must be sent to Bonhams, thus, yet again, approving of it.

Gardner was thoroughly deposed upon this issue. You decide if Gardner was being truthful or evasive. IMHO Gardner's attorney's objections were disingenuine as the question about being aware of the the arguing about the Haas filing did not invade attorney-client privileges. Any attorneys on this board care to comment on the propriety of those objections?

FYI, this post is aimed at our London (and Monaco LOL) viewers, who are not fully informed, or have been misinformed, about these issues.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

still wreaks like the smell of an arrogant crippled skunk

 

Joe:

1. Who is Thumann/who is he representing?

2. When was this deposition?

3. Smith?

4. Rinnear is your attorney?

Jeff

 

Gottesman, Thuman, and Florez are Gardner attorneys. A few days ago Florez withdrew from the case - reasons unknown.

The excerpt is from day two (2014.01.15) of a four day deposition.

Smith is Kristi Lawson's attorney.

Rinear is my (Ford's) attorney.

Joe

*

 

That was actually from his very FIRST post.....IMO.

There's kind of a "pot, meet kettle" vibe about the way he writes his delusions....easily recognized as a medical symptom.....drug abuse, possibly.

 

Joe,

Is there any particular reason that Karl Kleve's daughters Karyl and Katrina are not part of that fight alongside Kristine?

(PS: I believe this might be my FC post with the most "K" ever in one sentence!

 

Yes, the sisters quitclaimed to their eldest sister Kristi. We knew it would be a tough race and we wanted to spare them the ordeal. Attacks by the likes of Max Vito and a few others show we made the right decision.

Now, back to the facts. I will post a few more times to let all see the record firsthand, which I think shows Gardner as deceptive and untruthful while under oath.

Again, this is mostly for the benefit of the London lawfirms (JD and BC) who I think have been terribly misled and misinformed by Gardner, and for any other new London lawfirms (MdR).

The deposition testimony is by Gardner during his 2014.01.14 through2014.01.17 depositions. Mr. Rinear is the attorney asking the questions. This issue is to show how Gardner is delusional and in denial, as well as is untruthful, as to his default for failing to finance as agreed. Some of Gardner's actions are in the context of his 2012.01.12 vendetta (F Chat Post #1230). Note how the contemporaneous documents contradict Gardner testimony.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

These guys must have the world's most ineffectual lawyers, ever.

First, the attorney client privilege is not applicable here.

Second, the attorney seems unable to take baby steps. His compound question in lines 17 and following should have been broken down into simple questions. And then he could have avoided the objections.

But before breaking it down, the fact is that the attorney and client are trying like hell to avoid the question.

Now, here is how one gets by the stupid objections in the meat of that line of questioning. Instead of the question asked, you break it down like this:

"Did you hire Mr. Gottesman?
"Are you aware that Mr. Gottesman was involved in a public hearing on the case?
"In that public hearing, are you aware that Gottesman sought to enforce the Heads of Agreement?
"Are you aware that this title is required under the Heads of Agreement?"