375+ # 0384

I met Gardner at Goodwood in the 1990’s, he was racing . Later in the day he was lunching with King Hussein of Jordan in the Cartier tent. I like Bugatti cars, Gardner had a few, we talked, then he raced it then he took off with King Hussein of Jordon. Years pasted. In 2013, at the Goodwood gala – I saw him dancing with 2 Brazilian girls doing the limbo. Then he started the tango with both of them. The guy can Line Dance in a circle. Later in the evening, Gardner played bass guitar on stage with the Eagles. The crowd roared, the Eagles soared. On Sunday I caught up to him again rebuilding a Ferrari distributer in the paddock . I invited him for a drink with Stirling Moss and myself at the pub , at the Richmond Hotel at Goodwood. When CG entered, conversion started about their racing in the Bahamas where Gardner, Phil Hill, Ed Hugus and Moss did a promotional film for the government and Gardner won the prize, which he gave to Ed Hugus.

IMO Gardner is the world’s most interesting man. I did a little research on him – not that I have the time to go to the Court House and chase his disputes like Loco Joe , but I wanted the interesting stuff on him to see if all these rumors are true. I found that they are true, because this is F-Chat . A forum for the truth.

So on Gardner : Here goes ! I discovered that his passports, both the newly issued Swiss one and the U.S. one require no photograph. He speaks Russian, in French. Although he is fluent in all languages he only speaks in three. Once he brought a knife to a gunfight, just to even the odds. He knows the Pope, and they exchanges rings for a day. In museums, he’s allowed to touch the art. He seldom wears a watch because time is always on his side. He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels. No less than 25 Nordic folk songs have been written about his blue eyes. But there is more ;

His garden maze in Switzerland is responsible for more missing persons than the Bermuda triangle. If he were to say something costs an arm and a leg, it would. He’s never lost a game of chance. The police often question him, just because they find him interesting. He was a chef and won with his recipe for deviled eggs because it involves actual witchcraft. Respected auto collectors fight over the Classic Cars he passes on. At the Goodwood sale, although he was selling his own Ferrari ( well 50% ) , he couldn’t resist to bid anyway. What a guy ! No Dinky Car collector here !

I got his business card in front of me, it only says:

Christopher Gardner - ‘’ I’ll Call You ’’
Photos I took at the Cavallino event in Florida with his 625 and a couple of 'rail birds'
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I beleive that is Max on the left and CG on the right, if they aren't the same person. Anyone know the car?

Perry

 

It looks like the one posted earlier that Ford was asked to assist him with researching/procuring.

 

That's a pretty caustic admonition by the Judge. It pretty clearly points out that Joe has engaged in some behavior that is incredibly bad. Not sure Joe has commented on this.

Joe, it is not your place to instruct anyone on the law. It is clear that you have been in violation of it by altering a title (and that is in the court record--order or not), and that you have practiced without a license.

While we are on the law, a "subsequent transcript [which] supercedes (sic)" a prior transcript is a non-sequitur. The way your sentence reads, a subsequent transcript supplants or replaces the earlier transcript. Really? So it is your contention that the court reporter had it wrong and he/she wrongly transcribed the words of the judge? Is it your contention that the quote passages in Crikky's post have been stricken from the record?

This would mean that you did not alter the title; that you did not admit altering the title; and that you did not practice law without a license? Is that right? I just want to get the facts out, because as this thread plays out, I can't help but think that everybody in this ordeal is dirty.

 

I put the opposite construction on the passage to which you refer. Here is the passage, quoted verbatim:

"Whether he can withdraw his Power of Attorney or not, I don't know. He's done it or tried to do it. Based on my limited read through the case, I don't know exactly. I still don't understand how a signed document that orders the sale of the property where the sale takes on a given day or not isn't going to be enforced, but that's up to you all to argue in the court of appeals."

Here's my construction of the passage. The brackets and ellipses are mine:

"Whether [Ford] . . . can withdraw his Power of Attorney or not, I don't know. He [(Ford) claims that the actions that he has taken were effective to do so, and he may be right]. . . . Based on my limited read through the case, I don't know exactly. [But] I still don't understand how a signed document that orders the sale of the property[,] where the sale takes [place] on a given day or not [at all] isn't going to be enforced, but that's up to you all to argue in the court of appeals."

In other words, I think what the Court was saying was that it did not see how an agreement to sell on a date certain did not cease to have any force or effect after that date had passed. There could be causes of action for consequential (contract) damages, and for compensatory and punitive (tort) damages. But the specific performance of a sale on that date certain is no longer possible.

I would add another paragraph to the Court's musings:

"The current status of the Power of Attorney that Ford had granted under the Heads of Agreement, and of the provision of the HoA that the car will be sold on a specific date, and the issue of whose names should appear on the Ohio title, are not presently before this Court. The moving party, Gardner, failed to put them at issue in his moving papers. This omission denied the opposing parties the opportunity to present their opposing arguments and evidence. So what I just said has no legal effect whatsoever. It might be interesting fodder for a thread on an internet message board, but that's about it."

 

Oh look - we agree on something again. Took you long enough.

>8^)
ER

 

What the transcript of this November 14, 2013 hearing shows is a judge who is thinking out loud on a number of topics. It also shows a judge who had two points of high animus toward Joe Ford.

First, evidently Joe Ford had caused Chris Gardner to believe that Ford was a licensed attorney; that this belief caused CG to transmit documents to Ford with the expectation that attorney-client confidentiality would apply to these transmissions; that Ford refused to return the documents to CG; that Ford introduced the documents in litigation in which he and CG were adverse parties, and without requesting leave of court to do this, and in the absence of a "CG versus Ford" cause of action that would actually support such a request; and that Ford argued that he was not required to maintain CG's confidences or to make the request, because he was not really a licensed attorney.

Second, evidently Joe Ford had testified to Judge Martin that, when he made a request to, evidently, Judge Nadel, to alter the title to #0384, Ford knew at the time that CG was a lienholder, and that his lien should have been disclosed to Judge Nagel, and possibly memorialized in the title itself.

I think that the resulting animosity caused Judge Martin to go overboard with the characterization that Ford had "fraudulently altered" the title. Ford did cause the title to be altered, by seeking a court order to issue a title listing him and Lawson as the owners. But did he cause Judge Nadel to remove Gardner from the title? This is what is implied in the term "fraudulently altered." I am thinking that he did not; that Gardner's name has never appeared in the chain of title to #0384. What Ford evidently did was to fail to share with Judge Nadel the information, evidently known to Ford at the time, that Gardner claimed a lien on Ford's interest. Ford (and Lawson?) personally denied this claim, and he (or they) believed that to remain silent about Gardner was in his (or their) interest. I think that's all we've got, in support of the term "fraudulently altered."

Fraud is a term with a precise definition. It consists of an untrue assertion, made to another party with the intention that the other party will believe the assertion to be true, and to act in reliance on that belief, by a party who knows or believes the assertion to be untrue. This case lies on the edge of the definition, if Ford did not personally believe that Gardner ought to be named on the title.

In any event, Judge Martin's characterization was not a ruling on a contested motion for a finding that Ford had "fraudulently altered" the Ohio title. Therefore, it falls short of an "Order that declares the Ohio title as defective or fraudulent." It is interesting that Judge Martin also stated "I'm making no ruling as to the auto title but that we are going to have a hearing on whether or not this auto title needs to be changed as soon we can, as soon as possible, hopefully before end of the year." As of the November 14 date of this hearing, that meant "hopefully within the next 45 days." This did not happen, and it appears that it has not happened in 2014 either. Why is that? Certainly the attorneys have spared no trees in their court filings since November 2013. I expect the answer is lurking somewhere in this ever-expanding ant's nest of litigation. What is it?

 

P.S. We have seen this document before, but the document in this link -- 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 the only Order that came out of the November 15, 2013 hearing. Actually, there was a subsequent, revised version, which deleted the words "and approved" from the signature block on page two.

 

I think the Buyer has already begun using his legal talent.

See attached media release now being circulated in the top tiers of the classic car community. I can't wait to see the whole story.

Joe


*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

With their big Monterey auction seven days away I am surprised that Bonhams did not hire its own Boeing Business Jet to deliver the refund check. The information in this humble message board thread, including the transcript of the July 28 Hamilton County hearing, is more than enough to belie the representation that title was settled and that there is no pending litigation. But what do a bunch of Dinky Toys collectors know?

 

"...damages and compound interest..."

wonder what that could amount to...

things can unravel quickly for the auction house, if it fails to act quickly to reverse the sale...

the cliche' "...that stuff flows down hill..." will come into play on those that participated to continue the sale while under the cloud of ability to transfer title...

 

Consider this . . . if Bonhams knew or should have known that the sale was going bad, they have violated a large number of laws. Seeing as this car was advertised through several jurisdictions and that the brochures were mailed, it could be argued that Bohnams was part of a criminal enterprise. This brings in RICO. (Racketeering statutes.)

Bonhams certainly had reasonable notice and it seems to have been in some secret deal with someone--on the side.

Bonhams could go down for this. I mean it. The company may be done. A fair inference to be drawn is that they were not only complicit, but they were also conspirators. And that means "kaput."

 

wasn't thinking RICO, you are absolutely correct, there is continuation of criminal enterprise with this case and also supplemented by the recent disclosure of other misdeeds by them in the news... additional fodder that the recent purchaser may already be considering... hope they don't use the arcane check and the BBJ and electronically have returned all funds

 

It reads as if written by you.

 

Oh Debbie Clark , I never met any of the Losers you run with. But, you are like a pack of wild dogs following a ***** in heat. But, if you are carrying around conversations by the year full, I am sure Tom Price has some exposure dealing with villain’s like you.

Furthering the trashing of people’s cars that you where refused a commission on earns you a Badge and part of the ‘’ Indigent Club’’. Discredit to gain creditability. All of you crooks have one thing in common – own nothing - nothing to loose. I’ve heard from other people you are a load of trouble since your release and probation. Did you ever clear those problems with the authorities there? But, I did hear Tom Price said he didn’t trust you further than he could throw you both. I would suggest you remain in the back of the bus before I call your probation officer. She’ll be pissed that your still at it, defrauding rich collectors with your black mail. I saw the email from Gardner to you, where he refused to pay you $175,000 for the truth. It’s in the court record. A week later you Lap danced with Joe Ford for a stab at Gardner’s money. Deb, your in the Mr. Fraud club – make your case here and you go under the bus where you belong. Deb, give me a call – so you can rest your battered and shellfish soul on who I am. From your detention center dial like this 011 44-0909 534 9090.

 

I was tempted to ask if he helped with the punctuation too.

When are we going to find out the high bidder was in cahoots with the Ford/Lawson team from the beginning? Seems plausible anyway...

>8^)
ER

 

This is the funniest thing I have ever read or had anyone say about me.......you're the best!!!!

 

To all who state that Mister Gardner had a lien or claimed there-in, once again I draw your attention to clause 7 part 5 that is supposed to come from Chris Gardners own affadavit....... And I quote "thus again showing I did not expect nor have any ownership interest".

Now maybe OJ misquoted him or somehow changed his affadavit when posting it but the original is part of post 1040, page 52 of this very thread so is definitely public knowledge.

If the affadavit is true then well you can read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. OJ was clearly playing fast and loose with his client but there again things had clearly changed after the switch and bait..... Just saying....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I was struck by the bland choice of words that "Hively sold the car to . . . Karl Kleve. Later it passed to the partnership of Philippe Lancksweert and Jacque [sic] Swaters." This characterization -- "later it passed" -- glosses over quite a bit of relevant skullduggery. As colorful as Ocean Joe's writing in this thread has been, I would be very surprised if he could restrain himself to that extent.

Regarding the measure of damages, I wouldn't like to think about it from the defense side. According to the common law, under a breach of contract theory, the buyer would be entitled to "the benefit of the bargain." In effect, the trier of fact would be asked to award the plaintiff sufficient funds to go out on the open market and purchase replacement merchandise that is substantially equivalent to what the seller and the buyer agreed to be the consideration of their agreement. With a one of four, 60 year old Ferrari, that's likely to be a lot of money. Under a fraud (tort) theory, the buyer would be entitled to damages equal to the difference between the misrepresented value and the lower amount that represents the true value of the property, plus sufficient punitive damages to constitute a just level of punishment for the defendant's wrong-doing. The greater the net worth of the defendant, the greater this amount of punitive damages tends to be.

 

Max, love the 625F1, nice car, you arent also involved in the trade of 300SL gullwings?

 

+1

 

Where can the full transcript be found ?

 

I take the point that your addition of "at all" is an alternative to my reading of simply another date of sale. However, I feel your construction implies that even if the sale took place on the given day it would not be enforced. Surely this could not be the case ?

 

500/625 Tipo F2/F1 #0210.

 

Is it not simply a fraud to even register a title on the car given the circumstances ?

Ford and Lawson may dispute the validity of the sale agreement to Swaters but are they in their rights to register title to the car until the dispute has been resolved ?