375+ # 0384

This is not the case. I don't think my construction includes this possibility. My construction of Judge Martin's dicta is that he construes the relevent provision in the HoA -- that the sale shall take place on a specific date -- to mean that if the sale does not take place on that date then the HoA falls silent as to any subsequent sale. But I could be completely wrong. The correct construction may be that Judge Martin does not see how the agreement to sell the car could not be enforceable. That construction would require us to delete several words from what he actually said. But this may be appropriate. The judge was meandering all over the place, without a lot of care in his choice of words. When a judge is actually pronouncing an oral order, he tells the parties that is what he is doing, and he is very careful about the language. Anything the judge says that he does not intend to include in his oral order generally has no legal effect.

I don't like the use of the term "register a title." My understanding of Ford's application to Judge Nadel was that he enter an order that the Ohio BMV issue a title naming Lawson and Ford as owners. Assuming that some other party to the litigation opposed that application, Ford had to submit evidence to support the propriety of that request. If Ford, by affirmative representation or by silence, communicated to Judge Nadel the message that there was no other person than Lawson and Ford who should be named as owners in the new title, and Ford knew that there was in existence some such other person or persons, then it would have constituted a fraud on Judge Nadel to communicate to him the message that no such persons existed. If Ford did not believe that such persons existed, then it would not constitute a fraud, even if someone else had a different belief. If Ford's application had nothing to do with whether unnamed lienholders were in existence -- that is, if an Ohio title never includes named lienholders -- then it would not constitute a fraud to remain silent about the existence of lienholders. I know in my state titles do not name lienholders. It is also the case that the validity and enforceability of a lien do not depend on whether the lienholder is named in a title. Rather, a lien on property is a legal claim which gives rise to rights and duties. It is in the interest of the lienholder that the existence of the lien is memorialized in writing and included in the chain of title, such that any sale of the security cannot close until the lien is discharged. But this memorialization does not need to appear in the title to the property.

I know it reads like I'm splitting hairs, but that's what happens in litigation. The short answer is that we can't characterize as fraudulent anything that Ford did and said and didn't do or say, in support of his application for an order for a new title, without knowing the context in which the application arose, and without reviewing the papers in support and in opposition, and the transcript of the hearing, and the order itself.

I take it also to be the case that Gardner's attorneys -- Haas and Thor -- on separate occasions represented to the Hamilton County courts that the Ford-Lawson title was the true title to #0384. These representations are binding on Gardner, whether he knew about them or not. He could move the court for relief from the binding nature of these representations. This could take the form of a motion to correct the title. This is an application that Judge Martin urged the parties to make in November 2013. This was not done. Now we see that on July 28, Thor is telling the judge the parties ought to arbitrate that issue. The court can't order the parties to arbitrate that issue. Why doesn't Thor make the motion to the court? Does he know a court will bind his client to his prior representations, and hopes that a private arbitrator is more likely to "cut through the crap" and disregard the party admission and aim for a result based on the real-world merits of the case? We don't know. But it is very curious that no one has made the motion to the court to litigate the title issue once and for all.

 

LOL Max
If you think that's a photo of Tom Price, then it's no wonder you missed seeing both Price & Myer at the 2014 Cavallino classic.....

 

I find it "interesting" how the use of " is used.

I haven't used a name for " as it may vary in different environments and countries....

At the end of the day, I would use "blah" to quote some one....

I wouldn't use ''......,

Interestingly, I can't replicate the funny weird quote marks.....

Other than this thread, I would have ever tried to replicate that item......


Shawn

 

^ it's official, "the train has jumped the tracks"

 

Do we have a serial for the car in the pic with Mr. Andretti and "Mr. Price"? ; )

 

Now was that an ironic "interesting" or an emphatic "interesting"

 

OJ has to do all it takes to derail the train, cause confusion and roll the dice. Guys got nothing to loose and like a crook nothing invested. Once the criminal investigation reviles his true role, he is toast in any court. Bonhams has already enough of a claim against Lawson and him to wipe them both out. Gardner follows and sweeps with Swaters who both have the only true interest.

The owner, Mr. Leslie will get all he needs in title rights, needs the car in his collection anyway, bought it cheap and he made money on the buy. The rest is staber rattling, or as we say ‘ tossing the rattle out of the crib’’ . If he wants a refund, he’ll get it when the case rolls on before the High Court, in a year of so. By then the car will be at the 25,000,000 pound level matching the Barridon car in France. Remember one thing, Lawson and Kleve where paid in full, it’s only Ford that has masterminded a scheme here. He’s got to stay joined at the hip with Lawson, who appears like one less rib than Daddy nuclear scientist. .

Just I have to think of Les’s real clout in Ohio. Big collector with his name on building across Ohio and he’s got no clout to call the Judge and say , Steven E. Martin , I want to pay $2,500,000 in tax for a title in my name, so get off the pot and act in enforcing the rights of the people of Ohio (me!) on this title and cancel the bad title you said it was riddled with fraud. Let’s get that done by the afternoon and I’ll met you for a two martini lunch .

You have to admire Loco Joe, he’s got an Ohio billionaire, an elected Judge and a few ambulance chasing lawyers eating out of his hand ......or walking into the same sand trap that got Swaters and Gardner. God Bless America, home of all the wacko nuclear scientist and lawyers with no licenses . This would never happen in Europe.

 

Oh Timmmmmmmmmy. You are just on the verge of being a Dull boy but the earthquake woke you up. You should know, or figure out by now, that the ‘’Affidavit’’ mentioned in OJ’s clause 7 part 5 was deemed a false statement in January 2014. OJ’s reference to Gardner’s affidavit is one that does not exist – and as he does – he omits it. As it never existed , he played it into into his filing with the Court unsigned while he practiced Law with Herb Hass preparing motions on motions to file in the case. He tried to step further into Gardner’s ownership rights and was caught. Why would Gardner have signed such a statement at the precise time Ford was busted for stealing funds? OJ was caught out on that one. None can provide a signed copy . End of subject.

How does a lawyer practicing law for Gardner on only Gardner’s car deals and under a retainer agreement wind up with a Gardner Ferrari in his name ? The guy was working for CG all his adult life off and on, and had no bank account and Zero income other than that of what Gardner provided to him .... Christ , you kiwis.

 

Looking back. In February 2010, Swaters issued proceeding for breach of contract. In April 2010, all parties agreed to a Status Quo Order by the court which included a direction to maintain the title documentation, yet OJ appeared to give little regard to the terms. Interests were varied and titles were changed and the transcripts show an understandable annoyance of the Judge.

I do not understand vehicle registration in the US but I am surprised that the title can be changed in these specific circumstances. OJ posted a copy of a title dated May 2012 showing joint ownership and himself (resident in Ohio) as the previous and sole owner. On that date the car was not in his possession, he was aware that the car was registered to an owner overseas who was currently suing him and he had a Court order requiring him to maintain the status quo. Fraud may be too stronger word was is it OK to register and make changes in these circumstances ?

 

Isn't the current OH title somehow tainted if Karl KLEVE accepted compensation for the loss of the car as claimed by Max recently and by another poster a few years ago?

Is there a record of Karl ever registering 0384AM in his name prior to 1989?

How come could 0384AM by exported from GA in 1989 w/o a clear title?

Didn't the buyer, M. Krauch clear 0384AM with the police in Belgium?

I exported a Mercedes in 1990 from Virginia and I had to present a clean title showing I was the owner and that there were no liens.

 

Kleve, who inherited his father's insurance company, never accepted any compensation for his loss because he wanted his car. At the 1989 trial, Stan Novak as the Ferrari expert testified the value of the Stolen Portion to be in excess of $500,000. By the time Swaters "obtained" it, it was worth in excess of $1,000,000.

Yes. Kleve applied to the State of Ohio for a copy of his title in 1994. The State informed him that their files automatically purge old titles and they had no record. Kleve then went to Court and obtained a title by court Order. That title was maintained by Kleve from that date on and passed to his heirs upon his death. Excellent OFFICIAL provenance, to this day, via official Ohio titles.

It was exported by sophitisticated exporter who knew he possessed stolen property, thus he made the false declaration of it being "automobile parts." That way it would escape detection. At the time, Ferrari 375 Plus 0384AM was widely publicized as stolen from Ohio, in America and in Belguim, long before Swaters "acquired" it. (F Chat p.23 Post #452, p.26 Post #509) The import documents did not match the export documents, showing yet another sophisticated importer who magically transformed the "car parts" into one "1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM" and referred to a Bill of Sale for $4,500. (F Chat p.13, Post #247; p.20 Post #382; p.47 Post #952) The Belgians overlooked these discrepancies - someone had the pull from day one -- even the FBI complained about this. Who could have done that?

No. The police merely released the property to Mr. Kruch's "L'Exception Automobiles" because they could find no criminal wrongdoing on Mr. Kruch's part. Belgian police do not confer "title" to property. Kleve actually had a Belgian attorney in 1989. He uncovered that Kruch used the same New York attorney that Swaters used. The FBI, at the time, thought the Belgian police and prosecutor -- "Procurer du Roi" -- were turning a blind eye to the mismatched, false declaration paperwork. I agree with that. Inquiry was thwarted by the use of the phony 0394AM identity. (F Chat p.5 Post #87) Who had the pull to do that in Belgium?

That is how the system is supposed to work. Sometimes it does not.

The evidence -- not the myth -- does not support concluding that Jacques Swaters is an innocent party or acquired in good faith. The export/import docs were defective, the price paid was 1/10 its value, Swaters could not prove he paid the price to Kruch, and it was suspiciously missing its VIN plate (which the FBI possessed). There is more evidence that I must save for trial. Kruch was a supposed to be a "dealer" -- what dealer sells "car parts" or a Ferrari 375 Plus at 1/10 its value?

Joe

*

 

Where is the original vin plate now? With 0384am,FBI, or others?

 

a Corvette stolen 33 years ago, recently in the news, was returned to its' original owner...in that situation vin numbers and documents were forged, due to a bit of luck the authorities for some reason questioned the car's ID causing them to dig deeper to verify the identity of the car, where they discovered the true identity and that the car had been stolen... despite several title transfers / owners over 33 years, the car remained stolen and was returned to the original owner.

title cannot be transferred on stolen property, property remains stolen until recovered

 

Thank you for your detailed answer OJ.

The export invoice actually states:

It also mentions that the car is only 40% complete, so that might be a loophole for the export?

 

You are incorrect. You confuse the three different documents. Export doc, Import doc, and the "Bill of Sale," referred to only by the Import Doc. The export doc does NOT have anything but "car parts" declaration. Remember, this has all been vetted by the FBI and other law enforcement, years ago. My conclusions match their conclusions.

Joe

*

 

THIS is what it boils down to. Either someone knew that they were buying a stolen car, "parts", or was infromed they had clear title to it, fraudulently. Swaters surely knew of 0384AM and it's situation. So, either he is complicit, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, or was told a lie about the title.

Perry

 

What I would propose is that Joe is arguing that Swaters and Lanksweert were not innocent buyers. That would mean that their ownership claim under Belgium law was flawed.

 

this case is a good example of having abundant resources to hire advocates to throw all sorts of BS at the legal system in support of false claims... it also shows how nefarious the purchaser's are in their intentions to retain their ill gotten gains at all cost.. taking an otherwise simple ownership claim to new heights while fully knowing the potential value
of their purchase... if full value was exchanged for the purchase, none of these proceedings would have taken place

 

For the second or third time I have reviewed the docket in Swaters v. Lawson, Hamilton County case no. A1001370. The docket in case no. A1001370 is another collection of tea leaves, whose true meaning those of us on the sidelines can only guess. But the entry on the docket which is the most likely to have been the application which resulted in the issuance of the Lawson-Ford title (copy attached), is "Defendant Ford's Motion to Clarify or Amend Status Quo and Request for a Hearing," filed on April 27, 2011. If it is the case that this was the relevant application, then it would not be correct to describe Ford's application as showing "little regard" for the terms of the April 23, 2010 "Agreed Status Quo Order." Rather, every pre-trial order is subject to modification, on the motion of any party. This is how it is done, with a written motion, and an opportunity for opposing parties to submit evidence and argument in opposition.

Again, unless we have reviewed all the supporting and opposing papers, and the hearing transcripts, and the order, we should not be annoyed by these proceedings. The application to Judge Nadel was made in a contested proceeding. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, plaintiff Florence Swaters was notified of the application and was given an opportunity to oppose it. In fact the docket shows that someone -- presumably Swaters -- filed a "Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Joseph Ford's Motion to Clarify or Amend Status Quo," on May 9, 2011. I don't know what Swaters submitted in opposition. I don't know what representations Joe Ford made to Judge Nadel in support. I can guess by Judge Martin's November 2013 remarks that Joe Ford either left something out of his showing, or put something in, that Judge Martin characterized *in dicta* to have constituted fraud. But regardless of the misleading nature of Joe Ford's inclusions and omissions, it is the nature of litigation to override and to modify the objective real-world facts. If Swaters failed to present sufficient evidence and legal authority to persuade Judge Nadel not to enter an order to issue the Lawson-Ford title then this result is binding on the then-parties: Swaters, Ford and Lawson. The parties to the litigation can file motions for relief from the result, or they can apply to the appellate courts. Apparently Florence Swaters has never filed such a motion, for relief from Judge Nadel's order to issue the Lawson-Ford title.

As for Chris Gardner, he did not file his Motion to Intervene in the Swaters v. Lawson case until July 10, 2013. (Again, see the docket in case no. A1001370. Therefore CG was not a party at the time that Ford made his application to Judge Nadel, and CG therefore would have had no standing to file an opposition to that application. However, on May 8, 2012, Gardner's attorney Herbert Haas -- who at the time was attorney of record for Kristi Lawson -- filed with Judge Nadel a "Notice of Filing of New Title 0384 AM," to which he attached a copy of the new Lawson-Ford title. Joe Ford posted up a copy of Haas's court filing, and a copy of CG's deposition testimony that Haas was his attorney at that time, in Post 1493. It is my understanding that CG's attorney of record in Swaters v. Lawson -- "Thor" Gottesman -- has represented to the court that the Lawson-Ford title is controlling. At the very least CG is bound by Thor's representations, and possibly by Haas's as well.

Moving ahead to the November 14, 2013 hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction -- here is the 16-page transcript previously posted up by Chrikky -- Judge Martin told Thor to include in the proposed injunction "a paragraph that says . . . that 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." Thor did not include this paragraph in the Preliminary Injunction that was actually filed on December 3, 2013 (copy attached), and no one seemed to care about the omission.

This is probably because Thor had filed a motion in Gardner v. Ford, Hamilton County case no. A1306451, on November 19, 2013, entitled "Plaintiff's Motion to Reform Title." (Here is the docket in no. A1306451.) Note that this information refutes my previous statements in this thread, that no one has filed a motion for relief from Judge Nadel's order to issue the Lawson-Ford title. Another member pm-ed me to straighten me out on this. This pm-er also stated that this motion was heard by Judge Martin on December 16. (That hearing does not appear on the docket.) I am informed that Thor asked Judge Martin at this hearing to continue the hearing to January 17, 2014, to give Thor the opportunity to present witness testimony. The motion was submitted and Judge Martin denied the motion.

In other words, in response to Chris Gardner's express application to alter the Lawson-Ford title, the same judge who had previously characterized this title as a fraudulent alteration, decided that he must leave it undisturbed.

Yes. It was OK. See above. Any party who thinks it wasn't OK has the right to try to persuade a judge to agree with him or her. Florence Swaters tried in the first instance to prevent the issuance of the Lawson-Ford title. She failed. Chris Gardner tried to persuade Judge Martin to change the title in December-January. He failed.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Your explanation is appreciated and your conclusions are not one I would expect from a UK perspective

 

I have got my hands on copies of two documents filed in the Gardner v. Ford action. The first document, four pages long, is the motion that Thor filed on November 19, 2013, on behalf of Christopher Gardner. In this motion Thor is asking Judge Martin to enter an order to issue a new title to #0384, "such that Plaintiff, Christopher Gardner, is listed as the Owner because Defendant Ford purchased his interest in the Ferrari using Gardner's money while acting as a fiduciary on behalf of Gardner. As such Ford's claimed ownership interest should flow to Gardner." Here are some jpegs of that document:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The second document is the "Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Reform Title," that Joe Ford's attorneys Edward Collins and Richard Rinear filed on December 2, 2013, on behalf of both Ford and Kristi Lawson. The Opposition relies on the ground that Gardner had litigated the issue of title in the Swaters v. Lawson case, and that he was bound by Judge Nadel's August 19, 2013 Judgment in that case. Collins and Rinear attached a copy of the Judgment to their Opposition, and that copy is included in the jpegs attached below.

Ironically, the Judgment in Swaters v. Lawson is the same one that Ford and Lawson appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. This appeal resulted in a ruling that Judge Nadel had no jurisdiction to hear any request for relief arising from the Heads of Agreement. As the 1st DCA put it, "the trial court erred in enforcing the terms of the Heads of Agreement, because the forum-selection clause divested it of any authority to implement the agreement. And because the trial court’s dismissal of all claims was based on the erroneous premise that the court had the authority to enforce the agreement, the granting of the motion to dismiss was also improper." (Jeff Kennedy copied and pasted the 1st DCA's opinion here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143230062-post1205.html)

Although the 1st DCA did not address this point, it appears that the *only* part of Judge Nadel's Judgment which was *not* in excess of his jurisdiction is the part where he orders "that the September 21, 2011 Restraining Order and the April 23, 2010 Agreed Status Order are deemed lifted and of no force and effect."

On the other hand, Judge Nadel's order that "Lawson, Gardner, Ford and Swaters shall execute a Limited Power of Attorney in favor of Bonhams, authorizing Bonhams 'to execute all necessary documents, including transferring of title, and to perform all necessary tasks for the transfer of titles of the Car and Car Parts to the ultimate purchaser pursuant to the Heads of Agreement'" was, in this observer's opinion, clearly in excess of his jurisdiction. The Heads of Agreement itself (copy below) does not even include a requirement that Ford or Lawson or anyone else execute such a POA.

In any event, here are some jpegs of the Opposition:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Notice that Exhibit B to the Opposition is a very blurry copy of the famous Heads of Agreement. Here is my transcription of the HoA:

HEADS OF AGREEMENT
DATED March 12, 2013 BETWEEN (1) FLORENCE SWATERS et al ( BC/ The Belgian Contingency) and Kristie Kleve et al/Joseph L. Ford III and Christopher Gardner (OC/The Ohio Contingency) AND FOR THE KLEVE HEIRS AS DEFINED BELOW (ALL REFERRRED TO THE “Ohio PARTIES&#8221 AND (3) BONHAMS 1793 LIMITED OF 101 NEW BOND STREET, LONDON, W1S 1SR (“BONHAMS&#8221

1. The parties have entered these Heads of Agreement to set out the terms on which (a) BC and OC Parties have agreed to extinguish all claims and counterclaims between them in relation to a Ferrari 375 Plus motor car, Chassis No 0384AM, Engine No. 0384AM and engine 0394 AM, with ALL the parts, documents etc. (“the Car&#8221 and (b) Bonhams has agreed to sell the Car by public auction. OC warrants and represents to BC and to Bonham’s that THEY have full authority to enter and perform these Heads of Agreement on behalf of all parties other than FS, and to stay all litigation in Ohio relating to the Car.

2. All clams and counterclaims between BC and OC whether already asserted or not, are hereby waived and permanently extinguished on distribution of the funds from the sale to the signers of this agreement. BC and the OC parties will promptly enter an agreement discontinuing all action in Ohio in such form as is appropriate under Ohio law.

3. Bonhams is appointed the world-wide exclusive agent of BC and of the OC Parties to sell the Car by public auction at no reserve at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013. Bonhams will pay all marketing, photography and transport costs. No vendor’s commission will be charged by Bonhams but Bonhams will entitled to charge full buyer’s premium at the normal rate.

4. Bonham’s, BC and the OC Parties will all work closely together to resolve all problems relating to the Car’s history and ownership and present a detailed and transparent account of the Car’s ownership from new.

5. BC will arrange for the Car and all parts (including a spare engine), document, records and photographs in her possession to be transported to Bonhams for storage until the Car has been sold and paid for. The OC Parties will arrange for all parts (including original body panels), fuel tank and documents, records and photographs in their possession to be transported to Bonhams in England for storage until the Car has been sold and paid for. Storage and insurance in England will be on Bonhams’ account.

6. The proceeds of sale of the Car will be divided in the proportion 50% to the BC Parties and 50% to OC – which represents 100% of the hammer price at auction.

7. All spare parts (including the spare engine and the original body panels), miscellaneous items, documents, photographs or records relating to the Car will be included in the sale of the Car at no additional cost or charge. All liens on the parts will be released by the lien holder (s).
8. A comprehensive list of all parts, documents, certificates, Bill of Sales, Archive materials both originals, certified copies and copies will be submitted by BC and OC parties and defined as their contribution to the whole of the Ferrari package to be auctioned.

9. BC and the OC Parties will give full disclosure to one another and to Bonhams of all documents and information relating to the Car in their possession or control. All agreements between the parties are to be kept confidential at all times by the parties and by Bonhams. Neither BC nor the OC Parties will enter any discussion with any third party in connection with the sale or marketing of the Car or otherwise in connection with it. The complete list of items to be produced by the parties BC and OC is attached as Schedule One which forms an integral part of this Agreement into which it is hereby incorporated.

10. BC and OC parties will provide at this initial signing, separate complete list of all parts, records, legal paperwork, titles, historical files, archives, spare parts and tools to be included and consigned to Bonham’s as a part of the sale of the 375 plus. Nothing will be withheld by all parties from the combining of the existing parts with Bonham’s belonging to the 375 Ferrari for this sale, including all rights to all pieces owned by each of the parties.

11. BC and OC Parties will surrender all existing registration documents, USA titles, Bill of Sales, and other conveyance documents they possess individually or jointly to be reviewed by Bonham’s as to the validity of which documents will be used in the conveyance to a new owner procured by Bonham’s for this Ferrari. All documents in the OC parties’ possession relating to the purchase and ownership of the Car by Mr. Kleve, including the original Bill of Sale for his purchase of the Car from Jim Kimberley, probate orders and all US license, title and other documents evidencing the ownership of the Ferrari by Mr. Kleve and his heirs.

12. This Agreement shall be governed by English law and any dispute in relation to it will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London.

/s/ Florence Swaters 18/3/2013 [18 March 2013]
/s/ Joseph L. Ford III 3/24/13 [24 March 2013]
/s/ Kristie Kleve-Lawson 3-26-13 [26 March 2013]
/s/ Christopher Gardner 15/3/2013 [15 March 2013]
/s/ Bonhams - London

 

You guys just don’t get it. Some of the pieces of Ferrari was stolen. Some where not stolen. Some pieces restored. Some stolen pieces were restored. Some not stolen pieces got purchased. A total restoration was done. Several settlements were made with Karl Kleve. All the car, minus a few sheet metal pieces destroyed , were all put up for sale. This ‘’ Car Package’’ makes up the undisputed original car. A settlement was reached with all parties having any valid interest in all claims in the package. The stolen pieces/portion was removed from law enforcement radar decades ago, as it was deemed no longer a stolen car.


Kleve was paid. Kristie Lawson was paid. All claims were settled with ALL the parties. ‘’ Title was transferred under EEC rules in a legal and binding conyenace was exercised under London Law aka/ European Community Law . All parties have been fully compensated from the proceeds.

Ocean Joe gets nothing from the proceeds.

He cheated and got busted.

End of Story.

 

You can't "unsteal" stolen parts unless they are recovered and or paid for.