phunny thing about tractors...they are often color coded where each manufacturer has their own color for their brand
I believe the photo was taken at Contessa Maggi's residence circa 2000. It was published in the March 2000 edition of Motorsport Magazine. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Pissst...Joe, I'm still waiting for your answer about your choice of words. No. Different. I went to an all girls school.
Yes, I think I know why Bonhams thought it could do whatever it wanted, despite our objections. I think what happened is that Bonhams improperly tried to use the prior Preliminary Injunction. The improper use was to pretend like the the Preliminary Injunction was an adjudication that Ford and Lawson had no ownership interest, and thus Bonhams ignored Ford and Lawson. When the Jan 17, 2014 clarification came out in which the Court stated there had been no adjudication of who owned what, Bonhams simply ignored it. Now, we have the court Order (posted below) that officially confirms the Court's Jan 17, 2014 clarification (p 65, post 1290). In essence, as was always the case, Ford is not restricted from asserting his own claims to the Ferrari. My claim is as a 70% owner, while Lawson's claim is to the remaining 30%. Bonhams should also have known that on Nov 19, 2013, Gardner's attorney motioned to change the current Ohio title and was unsuccessful, twice I think. That motion can be found on this thread, p80, post 1596. Again, as to the Order that just hit the docket, see below. See also the Gardner tweet from June 27, 2014. Like Phatboy said on this thread (p59, post 1173) we could not believe Bonhams tried to auction the Ferrari. The result -- Bonhams, Gardner, and Swaters are Defendants in a UK lawsuit (p78, post 1559). Gardner and Swaters are also defendants in a new Ohio lawsuit. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
If I may paraphrase poor Judge Martin's present posture, he has ordered that Joe Ford must conduct himself as if he had been Christopher Martin's attorney prior to the termination of their friendly relations; and that Joe Ford's claims to The Car continue to remain at issue, pending arbitration or trial. Captain Obvious level stuff. The August 20 Order will probably be helpful to rein in attempts at making Judge Martin's December 3/February 11 Preliminary Injunction say more than it says. But I don't think this August 20 Order, or the December 3/February 11 Preliminary Injunction, help to explain Bonhams's actions. I don't think it comes as news to Bonhams, or to anyone, that Joe Ford's claims to The Car continue to remain at issue in Ohio. What I think is that Bonhams just doesn't give a care anymore.
Can we conclude that the Court consider that Ford was Gardner's attorney given they have directed him to return all of his documents ?
"as if" is correct, as there is NO finding that Ford was Gardner's employee nor attorney. When Gardner publicly withdraws his claims that I acted as his attorney, then I will stop posting documents in my defense that show I was NOT, and that show Gardner was ONLY Ford's financier, and Gardner subsequentlly defaulted (Notices of Default: p75 post 1499; Gardner's "finial" vendetta against Ford: p62, post 1230). The same goes for Gardner's claims of someone being a fraudster. Recap of Docs By Date: 2011.01.31 Ford-Gardner F375 Financing agreement, Gardner signed, at p36 post 717. 2011.04.05 Notarized amendment confirms Ford-Gardner F375 Financing Agreement, Gardner signed-notarized, at p36 post 717. 2011.10.18 Ohio Attorney Haas' Conflict of Interest Statement, Gardner signed, confirms both the 2011.01.31 Ford-Gardner financing agreement and the 2011.04.05 notarized amendment, used as deposition Exhibit 26, (posted below) 2012.06.04 Ohio Attorney Haas (Gardner's attorney) letter to Lawson and Ford confirms, again, Gardner as the financier whose only input is to pay the bills, p64, post 1267. A few days ago, the Ohio court ordered Gardner to produce all bank records, so now, IMHO it is only a matter of time before Gardner's records show the default. As to Fraudulent Claims: At p36, post 720 is a link to Gardner's cached LinkedIn Profile where Gardner fraudulently claims he went to "Loyola University New Orleans College of Law" -- that is my alma mater, and I can assure you he did not attend that law school. That LinkedIn Profile was changed to yet another fraudulent statement "Loyola University New Orleans, engineering, international business, 1975-1979" as seen on p88 post 1745. Add those false claims to the US Government case against Gardner, and to the five witness affidavits about past misrepresentations / bad acts by Gardner (p52, post 1032) and you get an accurate, complete, time tested picture of who Gardner really is. Surely Bonhams and Swaters knew most of this when they entered into a Joint Defense Agreement with Gardner as just revealed on p92, post1828. Sorry if this is boring to some, but IMHO for the London eyes and the high-bidder that is getting up to speed, it is very, very relevant. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The Court issued judgement on both the Gardner v Ford and Lawson v Swaters cases on 22nd August. IMHO the silence, and unanswered questions, indicate it did not go as OJ planned A full posting of the judgements will clarify
Your speculation prior to any knowledge of the Aug 22 orders shows, once again, your persistent bias against Lawson/Ford and bias pro Bonhams/Swaters/Gardner. FYI, the case A1404305 Aug 22, 2014 orders have to do with making progress on the service of the new Lawson/Ford v. Swaters/Gardner lawsuit on Gardner and on Swaters, i.e. a good thing for L/F. The silence was because I was busy ordering three truckloads of popcorn, based on what I know is about to happen. (hint, hint) Joe *
Bias ? Joe you are selectively posting and are avoiding difficult questions Simple solution. Please post the complete judgement and Judge comments so we can all form our own opinion based on complete information
Joe, nice of you to order popcorn... 3 truckloads must mean that you are treating :=) glutinous behavior is very satisfying and a good sign
True and perfect logic as far as Gardner goes but I don't think Florence Swaters or the "Belgium Contingent" subscribe to FC
The comments regarding selective release of documents needs to consider that the case(s) are still very much ongoing and that for a variety of reasons the release of information is not possible or appropriate. OJ's selective release of some documents is in stark contrast to the other side, who appear have released nothing under their own name. Considering who has already posted in this thread, it's naive to think that ALL the parties to the case have not seen this thread are not closely monitoring it. On a secondary note, this thread has also served to reveal the less than stellar backgrounds of several F Chat participants who seem to have gone very quiet.
