375+ # 0384

Sounds like blackmail, no?

Just asking, no dogs in that fight.

 

A few on this board think the stolen car found its way into Belgium under legitimate circumstances, into the hands of a legitimate "good faith" purchaser for value.

My analysis, like that of the FBI, is that it did not -- it was all part of a deliberate, sophisticated attempt to launder a stolen car -- the attempt fails when analyzed.

Please review the below two exhibits and let's have that discussion.

First is the Bill of Sale and the Bill of Lading export document comparison.

Second is the Bill of Lading and the Belgian import document comparison.

Note there is no confusion as to the car's VIN number -- it was 0384AM.

Yet another reason Swaters had to come back in 1999, and then again in 2010 -- he lacked title and he could not sell for value without it -- the same applies today, plus there is the need to have the original DNA as embodied in the Ohio parts.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Bank Robbers still go to jail even if the money is recovered. They don't get to say "no harm; no foul."

 

Not a good legal argument. In the case of a builder, if he lifts a finger at all, then the remedy is not to rescind the contract. It is an action for breach and damages. The builder can still get paid for the work he performed under a theory of quantum meruit. However, the damages he caused might be greater than the compensation he is owed.

But under this theory, the contract at hand would be construed, as rescission is not the remedy afforded.

In order for you to be right, you need circumstances which let you rescind the contract, no sue for a breach under it.

 

It’s just entertainment David, please relax . With 35,000 post you can’t be at a lost for more than time. When one crawls in bed with a hound with fleas, you are not immune to flea bites. We all know that Ford has much to say, and most of it is boring – so let’s all have a good laugh between the onion layers. If you really want a good laugh, I’ll post the court room questioning of Ford and a little private video of him mulling around the outside of the Bonhams building talking to himself. Hilarious.

In the end, one person will be crying I am sure. I apologize for my vileness, but it’s my own form of self expression peppered with true facts. Much like chili ice cream. Some people like it, other’s don’t. Relax and watch the pieces come together. And thanks to 180 degree for his only constructive post review and staying on top of Ocean Joe’s crimes and legal fantasy.

I’m off to Pebble Beach for 3 weeks, see you all there in the RM tent , or message me at the Lodge for a drink – if you’re buying.

 

Joe

IMHO these are very spurious reasons for you to justify sitting on the parts for five months and trying to shift the blame to Swaters. It is not uncommon that parties to a contract prefer to deal through their advisors and not direct and this would not stop communication between you and Swatters. I also believe that your claim that Swaters was "refusing" to lift the Status Quo on moving parts is totally inconsistent with Swaters then having to go back to the Ohio Court to force you to move them.

The rationale behind their decision to use an Ohio court is beyond my knowledge but I can say that it gave a quick result compared to the many months/years it would have taken in a London Court

 

Joe

IMHO "Racing automobile parts" on a bill of lading is an acceptable short hand description for what was being shipped and anyway, all of the documents, including those with the expanded description, would have been presented together to Customs, so they had the complete picture of what was being exported/imported

What difference do you think this different description actually made and who do you believe suffered from the suggested deception ?

 

Still standing and nothing in the press yet, even after the briefing.

Do you think they will make it to the Quail Auction as I can't wait to see what the GTO goes for ?

 

Pleased to hear that you are attending Monterey and will be in the RM tent, have you kissed and made up with Shelby & Rob Meyers (sic). After all in post 1542 you stated;

"The Ford witness defense list ( it’s on-line by the way ) includes car dealers Rob Meyers, Shelby Meyers joining Tom Price and a few other notable car collectors apparently now in the Dung bed with Ford. Seems Ford’s statements to the Court is the RM team is in business with Tom Price. So, as a witness for Joseph Fraud , Tom Price doesn’t have to go through the expense of ‘’extraditing’’ anyone . He can just make an appearance in the Ohio fraud case and explain his involvement with the fraudster Joseph L. Ford , easy peasy as we say."

Should I look for the James Bond look-a-like in a tux or are you attending as a waiter? Do tell.

Ultimately I will be at home playing with my "dinky" car collection so I guess I wont get to find out. But I must say I love RM, they always bring their A - game to Monterey, just wish I was there to see it first-hand.

 

I have exporting and importing stuff to and from Europe for the past 25 years and I concur 100%.

I am still puzzled that a car that has been declared (to police and FBI) stolen in January and whose location (Atlanta) was known (car inspected by expert and identified as Kleve's) could be exported as 0384AM a month later.

 

Record breaking £10.9m Ferrari sale disputed - AOL Cars

"Record breaking £10.9m Ferrari sale disputed

By Daljinder Nagra, Aug 6, 2014
Filed under: Latest News

The winning bidder of a Ferrari 375 Plus, which recently broke the record for the most expensive Ferrari race car ever sold at auction, has started legal proceedings in a bid to cancel the sale.

The unidentified buyer, who paid a staggering £10.9million for the ultra-rare road racer, has served a claim against Bonhams auction house seeking to rescind the sales contract and obtain a full refund of the purchase price, claiming that he was kept in the dark over ongoing legal proceedings surround the car.

The issue has arisen due to litigation over the ownership of the vehicle between two former owners, that the current buyer claims were fraudulently or recklessly misrepresented at the time of sale.

The car was sold at a Bonhams auction held at last month's Goodwood Festival of Speed, with the sales catalogue detailing that all relevant litigation surround it had been settled.

Furthermore, the buyer's agent, Copley Motorcars, claims that it was told by Bonhams that: "we know of no reason why title to the car cannot be validly transferred to the buyer or why the buyer should not be able to register title in, for example, the EU or the USA, subject to whatever local rules may apply about road registration of a sports racing car".

It is on these assurances that the misrepresentation claim is based, with the claimant stating that Bonhams was aware of the overturning of a US ownership ruling – leaving litigation ongoing – when it made them.

Aside from rescission of the sale of the Ferrari and restitution of funds paid, the buyer is seeking both damages in and compound interest from Bonhams.

The Ferrari 375 was designed to compete in endurance racing. Only five examples were built, with the disputed model first campaigned by the Ferrari factory team, before being sold to Kleenex heir Jim Kimberly, from who it passed on to a number of successive buyers."

 

Bonhams auction house could be sold to China's Poly Culture


"Bonhams auction house could be sold to China's Poly Culture

By Ben Harrington, Financial Mail On Sunday

Published: 22:14, 9 August 2014 | Updated: 22:14, 9 August 2014

Bonhams auction house could be sold to China’s Poly Culture, which has emerged as one of the frontrunners bidding for the company.

City sources said several heavyweight private equity firms – including Bridgepoint and CVC Capital Partners, one of the biggest shareholders in Formula 1 – have dropped out of the sale process, leaving the China-based firm in pole position.

Poly Culture is China’s largest auction house. It was formerly a subsidiary of the Poly Group, which is controlled by the Chinese government and has business interests ranging from property to arms exports.

The 200-year-old Bonhams is currently owned by Dutch collector Evert Louwman and chairman Robert Brooks.

They hired bankers from US advisory firm Greenhill earlier this year to find a buyer for the business, which is best known for selling fine art, classic cars and antiques.

It is not clear what the final selling price will be, but some reports have claimed the company is likely to change hands for ‘several hundred million pounds’.

Poly Culture was floated on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in March, the first time a major Chinese auction house has been listed outside mainland China."

 

While you're obviously enjoying yourself I think its rather disingenuous to describe this thread as "just entertainment".

 

who knows it may be Max Vito's substitute for Hustler Magazine and similar publications...

does anyone really care what Max does to entertain himself in privacy...

 

Kim

You need to better analyze what the situation is BEFORE you draw a conclusion.

The Status Quo Order prevented moving parts. Haas, attorney for Gardner, Lawson, and Ford, drafts a proposed order to lift the Status Quo so that parts can be shipped, virtually quoting the HOA. Swaters at first agrees, then Swaters does not. Thus, the parts do not get shipped. No one is "sittting on the parts for five months" - that statement just shows your bias for Bonhams or for Swaters. The question is why did Swaters refuse to sign the Haas proposed order for five months? The answer is she wanted more than what she bargained for in the HOA - something she had no right to do. Do you see how you are biased?

The HOA required the parties to deal openly, transparently, and direct with each other. What basis do you have to simply ignore that HOA provision? It turns out that Swaters had files she gave to Bonhams, not us . . . files that she withheld from the Ohio court proceedings from 2010 onwards. That in my book is fraud -- fraud in the inducement. Surely you see your bias. There was a reason we all bargained for transparency and direct communication - just as there is a reason that after we signed up for that, Swaters then ignores that HOA provision.

Then you try to justify the Swaters choice of the wrong forum -- you exhibit yet more bias - a third time. That choice of the wrong venue, which they waited to do, just shows me they were never serious about implementing the whole HOA as agreed in the first place. They simply wanted to get the Ohio title and parts into a foreign jurisdiction, and conceal other stuff. And then, literally on the last day of the auction, without any notice to Ford or Lawson, Bonhams claims that Swaters and Gardner told Bonhams to pay out $3,300,000 to some claimant. That stinks of fraud from A to Z. Now we know what the scheme involved.

It is my experience that Bonhams is definitely NOT trustworthy - look at what they just did . . . look without any bias. HOA provision "x" says do this . . . Bonhams does not do it. HOA provision "y" says do this . . . Swaters does not do it. Why should I have to do HOA provision "t" if they are not doing HOA provision "x" and "y"? What assurance do I have that they will not do HOA provision "z"? Google "first material breach" - please try to understand my point.

Is this an isolated incident by Bonhams? I doubt it.

Joe

*

 

Nice selfie, Maxwell!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I wonder what kind of consequence all this will have on Bonhams' upcoming auction?

 

It will take some time for this to run its course. Remember Arthur Anderson.

They will try to maintain status quo until the hammer falls.

 

Who is Bonhams 1793 Ltd - the entity as it operates now?

Below is recent testimony on that.

I have had business dealing with this particular Bonhams person who provides the testimony below. My experience is that his dealings were unprofessional, to put it mildly. In my case, Bonhams literally tried to sell my property and that of Ms. Lawson without authority, despite warning, and after first allegedly agreeing to payoff some 2 Million pounds to some alleged claimant the night before the auction, without any consult or permission from Lawson and Ford. IMHO, the men who built the original Bonhams with that well established track record are long dead and gone. The recent news and the Buyer lawsuit explains the present-day Bonhams, a seeming assembly of car dealers -- stay tuned to see if they make it right.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You snort a lot of cocaine, don't you??

 

Yep..Fonzie is IN the air!!

 

He's just about crossed the line with me, and I have friends in his 'hood.....

I don't know if this discussion can be saved but deleting ALL of his posts here would make it read smoother...Peter Goesinya???

 

Meet Joe Jamail (Enzo), and Racehorse Haynes (TR)....bye Max.....

 

BTW, Max, you REALLY should get spellcheck, while not within FChat per se, Mozilla and a lot of browsers use it as TSR....

It would keep you from sounding like Chris Gardner!!

 

Judging by his pic, gin blossoms.