375+ # 0384

Points taken but there is a big difference between those simply monitoring this thread and those posting to promote their case. You are right, only the "Ohio Contingent" appear to post, albeit that they have fallen out and are at war but they can all be described as "selective". Credit to Joe, that he posts and does so openly and in a more respectful manner, but he is still selective all the same and far too quick to accuse anyone who questions him as being bias.

The naivety here is not about expecting Joe to release case sensitive documents in their entirety as opposed to releasing selective extracts, the naivety here is not recognising that focusing on Jaques Swaters reputation and predicting armageddon on all against him is principally about negotiation a little to do with justice.

Think about it. Joe has told us that Florence Swaters will not deal with him directly so what better way than to use FChat to send messages and put pressure on her and her camp ?

 

Considering the systematic pattern of character assasination and provocation that's been levelled at OJ's from various anonymous sources its easy to see why he might be a bit quick with accusations of bias.

You continue to frame this case as simply a modern day attempt to get money from Swaters or his estate, ignoring that it was Swaters who initiated legal action to obtain bits of the car that were in Kleve's posession. That plan fell in a heap when it became clear that Swaters was not able to prove he ever settled with Kleve for the car and led to current events. In hindsight Swaters should not have stirred the hornets nest.

While Florence Swaters may have been the opposing party at the beginning, since last year it appears that Swaters / Bonhams became aligned comfortably behind Gardner, so the need to communicate specifically with her is moot.

Now I wonder if the level of comfort that drew the partied together last year continues to the present day ?

 

I’m back ! Before I start I will be at the Goodwood Revival Friday the 12th. As a GRRC member I can be found at the VIP tent...Photo included below for anyone wanting to meet me.

Well, it was a great series of events on the Monterey peninsula. So many nice people, and Jon Shirley’s hospitably suite was a real treat to Hob-knob outside of the world of F-chat. Jon is such a swell guy. I’m so thankful to get an invitation to go to see his collection in Medina. I did bump into Tom Price also, a thread character here on F-chat. Tom really knows his stuff, what a floor plan of cars, imagine ! In the RM tent things were popping, who even knows where those new buyers come from? I did buy a few people drinks at the Lodge and brought a bag of cheese burgers with me, it was Great fun.

I didn’t see Debbie Clark, as I imagine the ankle bracelet didn’t pass the airport security. Looked around for the Guru also, thought I saw him and yelled, but he didn’t hear me. I walked around with a sign on my back, like you folks do at Hershey, looking for a rim and BigTex ( likely to find them together) , but showing the picture I had of Big Tex only led me to be introduced to Tom Price. Amazing how this F-Chat let’s little known guys enter the Big Tent . I wanted to met up with Cheesy and Timmmmmmmmmmy – couldn’t find them although I waited at the bar. Sorry that Readplays didn’t make it, I guess too busy posting and ballet lessons. I did met MM , the most proper man near the Ferraris, he’s somewhat of a God in California now. He ‘s got little to say about Wedgies, I reluctantly have to add.

I’m trying to catch up to where we left off. So many bits and pieces of information out on the West Coast, churning in the thin air of Pebble Beach . I looked out for Ocean Joe, but there was no ‘’MG on blocks’’ class that I could find either.

So, I hear the 375 Plus has been delivered to Wexner. I heard that Wexner has a place for the 375 Plus in his museum, parked under a Picasso. I hear that Ford and Lawson has appealed each and every decision in Ohio . I heard that both Lawson and Ford had a meeting in London with Florence Swaters for the first time face to face, with all other parties present. (True?) Would love to have been that fly on the wall. Can wait to hear what Lawson looked like at that meeting. I heard that CG is suddenly funded, on a wild buying spree, that included buying his ( HPL) High Paid Lawyer , Thor Gottesman, a Ferrari as promised on the sale of the 375 Plus. ( I didn’t see him, and still have his cheeseburger ).

Also heard that Ford got funding for his legal fight in London , but pocketed the money – again leaving his lawyers waiting for a check in the mail. Hilarious. I also heard that Lawson’s lawyer ....... Tim Smith ( compliant Case 1992-2535 Disciplinary Case)........well, I’ll save that one for another post. Hey – Pebble Beach is no different than F-chat in the amount of stuff out there.

Reading the thread, I only see loads of popcorn ordered and not paid for - but nothing new really.

In order to maintain my previsions momentum in this Thread , and kept my ranking high on the rectum scale - Let me ask one question to Ocean Joe :

OJ, why don't you update us on the status of the UPL ( Unlicensed Practice of Law) Complaint against you. Was it dismissed ?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

We have lost Robin Williams but we have gained Max Vito. Popcorn supplies are under duress. But why pay as you go when credit is so cheap? (You Europeans can't stand it that, not only do we Yanks make the world's reserve security, we can make as much of it as we want.) On the fashion front, Max, these days only security guards and politicians are still wearing neckties.

 

Welcome back, there isn't enough humor in this thread.

 

To all my FC fans, I plan to start a new 'Max Vito' clothing line so all you 'guys' & 'gals' and 'others', can be as KOOL as me.
Watch this space.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I particularly like the red body builder thong that you've incorporated into your logo.

 

Michael

Ironically, I agree with your summary as justice has long since ceased to be the motive here and the estate Karl Kleve (the real victim) is not going to benefit from the outcome.

In order to settle the mater, Florence Swaters has agreed to pay 50% of the proceeds from selling a car she legally owns (outside the US). To me, this feels like a fair outcome but curiously, no one is prepared to give an opinion

Kim

 

Judging from the chain you'll be bringing the Frazer Nash

 

I too wonder what financial outcome (breakdown) would make Ocean Joe happy?

 

litigating is not about being charitable, this is an ongoing saga, there are items still in dispute, waiting adjudication, that need resolution... which can affect the outcome of the award... there is NO reason for either side to demand less than 100%... only a weak position will seek negotiation for something if there is total collapse of their case... with a strong position there is no need to negotiate... settlement is an out for weak positions or to dismiss a nuiscance... like in Poker, one does not show their hand until all bets are played

 

As a poker player you will also know when it's time to bluff and to fold

Personally I would have given up Ohio poker months ago and stuck to racing my 375 all over Europe

 

Come out, come out wherever you are OJ.
( We are still waiting on the UPL investigation question OJ . Please don’t do a runner on me.)

Second Question of the week:

We all understand that Swaters put in the restoration, parts, engines, a finished driving car with a valid and legal EEC ownership declaration – contributing to the ‘’bundle’’. We know that Kleve/Lawson had rights in parts stolen and USA titles that she contributed to the ‘’bundle’’. We know Gardner funded the Kleve bundle purchases, lawyers, and OJ to combine that into the ‘’bundle’’.

I can not figure what OJ did to justify an outcome for OJ..
Q:#2 OJ can you explain to us what you did as a contribution to the ‘’bundle’’ ?

 

Thank you so much for the compliment ! I was thinking of 'Readplays' for my first centerfold model of my new magazine, ‘’ The MAX Factor’’ , of course in the red thong .

 

Eel na pa da qua

 

any resources spent / enhancing stolen property is at the custodians' peril, true and clear ownership trumps all... intermediaries cannot step in and make any ownership determinations... a theft remains a theft until all claims are satisfied and a clear lineage of ownership can be demonstrated... there is NO parsing in determining ownership, agents / representatives of owners must clear their claims thru whom they represent...

any UPL claims have nothing to do with ownership or anything, it is a separate issue, not in any form or related to determining ownership, UPL claims stand alone and ONLY between those directly involved... it is a form of consumer protection for the general public protection...

 

Thanks. So if you fit a wheel that was stolen from the US the original owner gets to keep your car.

Judging from the pile of original pieces left over and the comments made on the restoration, I wonder what percentage can be proved to be stolen property ?

If OJ is demanding 100% for what is little more than a chassis number then I would be changing the "8" back into the "9" and giving the bits back

 

How much just for the tie?

 

It depends on how the court defines what constitutes the car. In that the litigation has proceeded this far I think that much has been established.

 

Not quite, as the principal litigation in Ohio relates to a claim for a breach of contract and not what constitutes the car. This case is fascinating and complicated and it is easy to forget that Jacques Swaters legally owned the car and this has yet to be proved otherwise.

 

My point is that the case could not have proceeded unless the underlying assumption was that Ohio had a claim to "the car".

 

You cannot legally own a stolen car or whatever, unless you are the original possesor of it and are gaining possesion of that item again, no matter how many thieves hands it's passed through. If the original owner has not given up his claim it is stolen to all other possesors.

Perry

 

As I understand it this is correct for US law.

Belgium has a wrinkle with being a "good faith" buyer and with a certain period of time elapsing. In this case the OC is apparently making claims that there may be issues with good faith applying and that the time limit expired because of actions to hide the true identity of the car's serial number.

 

Exactly. I don't think for a minute that Swaters didn't know the history of the car. Perhaps he was told it was available legitimately, but he should have done due diligence and checked. With that famous a car and that potential value, he had to know something was fishy. Those cars don't become available every day.

Perry

 

it is a universal law about stolen property, a theft remains a theft, until the theft is cleared by the original claimant or beneficiary of the claimant of the theft... there are cases by the thousands on record, under various forms of law... all custodians of stolen property are at peril to losing custody to the true owner regardless of the amount spent as being a curator, there is no reimbursement... it is a penalty of being a custodian of stolen property... theft is not a charity nor does it have compassion for those that harbor stolen property