What a curious statement. So, for all those who continue to defend or argue that Swaters did not know what he had, or who was its true owner, I offer you the attached letter, from Swaters' New York attorney files, circa 1990. This particular letter was never sent. A cleaned up version with no names and no trace to Swaters was sent. Please read this letter and understand its implications as to all subsequent Jacques or Florence Swaters claims about ownership, renumbering, and misidentification. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
And for a little inside story, direct from Swaters' files, about who set up, and how they set up 86 year old Kleve in 1999, and Kleve resisted, see below. Note the NCIC stolen car database reference. Note the VIN 0384AM. Note the names. Note the "we". I repeat. Note the names. I think what they did was despicable. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
According to that Anderson letter, he bought the car from Kleve and Kleve, ten years later, wanted to use his new OH title, which had to be fraudulent if Anderson bought the car fron Kleve, to turn a replica into a mega $ historical piece? I hope I read that wrong, as this document is rather detrimental to your case OJ.
That letter has the same style as many of our posters here, lately... Lots of proclamations in there, about "how the world turns".....as if they are in charge of such things!
I don't read it that way, he is actually crowing like a rooster, in this letter, and taunting Mr. Kleve that HE was the one that sold it, shipped it, and now it's gone, gone, gone.....so lump it.. This is a preening, self serving piece, to puff up his image to the Swaters team that "everything is under control...unicorns and rainbows".... He also refers to himself in the third person, that's either a convention of fiction writing, or the work of a pompous azz..... Or maybe in his case, both.
Sorry, but I don't get this. If you steal a car from someone do you then invite them +1 on an all expenses paid trip to come a view the self-same car?
Not sure that is the right take from the note. Do remember that Andersen was tried for the crime. He was not acquitted just a hung jury that the prosecutor decided not to re-try. Maybe I am wrong on this point but do not remember a specific allegation that Andersen ever bought the ownership to the car from Kleve. I won't use the term title since it is quite possible, until someone provide facts otherwise, that the purchase from Kimberly/Hively was done with a Bill of Sale and that the "remains" were never registered with the Ohio DMV since it was non-operational at the time and not going to be street legal even if it was.
True, true, but he mentions a lawyer supervised deal in 1989 to buy 0384AM from Kleve. If Anderson had stolen the Ferrari, would Kleve be talking to him ten years later and try to convince him to make another replica from his OH title?
I think it is Guy Anderson himself broaching the 'replica" subject, as it would certainly be within Swaters means to make as many of them as he wanted, using the original as a pattern... You know..."that has happened"....
Who has suggested that Swaters or Lancksweert (funny how he is never mentioned) did not know what THEY had and who the car was stolen from ? The theft was covered in the Belgium press and the motor dealer reported the car to the authorities as well as assisting in bringing the American villains to trial. The Belgium Contingent only acquired the car after the Belgium authorities lifted the seizure and permitted the sale to take place. I cannot see how anyone can claim that they or the Factory did no know. Personally, I believe Kleve had every right to let his property rot and it was morally wrong to hide behind European law and purchase a car that was stolen. However like it or not the BC legally own the car and the letter, who ever signed it, is nothing more than a shameful attempt at acknowledging Kleves ownership while offering nothing more then a free holiday for his loss.
I'm a little late to the party here but felt compelled to comment on the two different dates the car was reported as stolen. My understanding is that the car was offered for sale by someone other than Kleve in '85 or '86. Someone, already mentioned in this thread supposedly claimed to be in possession of the car and offered it for sale to a Ferrari broker. Their proof of possession was a shift selector, among other items. When the rest of the car could not be produced, the deal fell through. It is also my understanding that this is why so much of the car was disassembled when the remaining parts were stolen by Neilsen and Kettler in early '89. Already the subject of theft, Kleve supposedly removed many parts of the car to deter further theft. This is my understanding of the situation, put together from my sources involved in the matter. They are not my statement of fact, only statement of fact as delivered to me.
+1 What is interesting is the date. At that time the car was with the Belgium dealer and impounded by the authorities. Lancksweert acquired the car in March 2000
That letter is dated July 1999, ten and a half years after the theft. 0384AM was released by the authorities in 1990. My understanding is the authorities released it to the importer, Kruch, so no one is hiding behind that particular Belgian law about stolen cars. Kruch then sold it Swaters and Lancksweert.
Ferrari needs to be sued, that is the bottom line here. For millions of dollars for supporting 100% fraudulent Ferrari -aircar- 375 Plus history and buildup. OJ, I am sorry, you are not a lawyer. The bottom line is the truth. Again, there was never any chassis remains of a 375 Plus Ferrari in Ohio, EVER (period). All the photos in the court case are all 100% FRAUDS. Also, what and where were you guys from 1985 to 1990? I was with Guy Anderson as a biz partner. Period.
Good question. It has been answered many times. In 2010, in the final attempt to launder the stolen Ferrari, after waiting until Kleve had died, after hiring a Georgia attorney to threaten Kristi Lawson, and after filing suit in Ohio where Swaters knew that in order to win the Ohio lawsuit, he would have to be a good faith possessor thus he could never admit buying it while knowing it was stolen, Swaters himself claims he did not know it was stolen when he bought it. Swaters himself! Listen to Swaters tell on National Public Radio. IMHO Swaters is willing to lie about it in 2010, as he also did as to "mis-identification" when confronted with photographs and documents showing Swaters claimed it was 0394AM. " But Swaters tells a different story: He says in 1990 a trader sold it to him for $100,000. "I was very interested because it was a very famous car," he says, "and then a little later I learned the car had been stolen, so I charged a lawyer to negotiate with the owner to make a settlement." " NPR Radio Interview, posted Aug. 12, 2010 Race Car Driver Sues For Title Of Stolen Rare Ferrari : NPR Well, as we all know, the owner wanted his car back. In 1999, the owner still wanted his car back, and also said pay me full retail and I will sell it. There is a reason in 1999, Swaters put Lancksweert in charge of cleaning the paperwork. Joe *
OJ, you need to say 100% fraudulently built 'car' ...in all your statements, that as-which are all after fact so-called 100% fraudulent claims. Period.
OH DEAR! Thanks OJ, Tex, Rob, for '0' help in this matter. OJ. "you are the baby's daddy!" We will see what comes into play in the near future in the matter. Rob, again, I am a player if you ever want to sell your FerrariChat.com website. It is growing as you know well...$
Since you asked, here it is, HOT off the press. The First Appellate District of Ohio just denied Christopher Gardner's Motion to Dismiss the Ford-Lawson appeal. This particular appeal by Appellants Ford and Lawson argues that the Ford/Lawson claims in A1001370 Swaters v. Lawson et.al. must be reinstated and the case proceeds, according to the recent May 28, 2014 appeal that Ford/Lawson won. Appellee Gardner argued that the May 28, 2014 Appeal Decision said "final judgment" thus it meant the case was over, which is what the lower court Judge Nadel agreed to, thus Lawson and Ford appealed. That means the appeal goes forward. Below is the Gardner Motion and the Appeal Court Order denying it. Note: London, this is important. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
FerrariChat is about the community and it is a great one, just from your few posts and alias accounts I know that you would ruin this great community. who cares about just me, you would piss off 130,000 actual people behind user accounts. you can't afford me.
You are doing fine, rowing along on your own.. The distress signal is three red flares, and Mercury Racing will come drag you home.
