375+ # 0384

Let me help you with an informed review about Jacques Swaters' claim of "ownership".

Swaters' 2010 Ohio claims of OWNERSHIP stem from the 1999 documents. The 1999 documents that Swaters' partner Lancksweert signed literally attest to the fact that Karl Kleve is the owner of Ferrari 375 Plus 0384AM as of the date of that signing, and that Lancksweert, the buyer, was buying the car from Kleve. Plus, there is the 1999 Bill of Sale. So, when Swaters sets foot in Ohio court at trial, he cannot claim he already owned the car that he also claims he just bought for $625,000 in 1999. The forgery issue prevents the 1999 documents from binding Kleve. As to Swaters, the 1999 documents, Swaters claims they are real. So Swaters cannot argue against the statements his partner signed, Swaters ratified, and 10 years later, Swaters tries to enforce.

Note that in the years prior to 1999, Swaters would never admit nor claim he owned or possessed 0384AM -- the reason why is because it was on the stolen car list. Thus, Swaters present day claims to ownership, if based on anything other than the 1999 documents, place him in an untenable position. where he loses all credibility.

And Belgium law did not convey ownership to the car. There are the irregular export and import documents that preempt a valid entry into Belgium. Then, Swaters claims that the Belgian authorities "cleared" Kruch to sell the car on February 14, 1990. At the time, if truly cleared, the "as is" value exceeded $500,000, according to the Ferrari expert who testified at November 6, 1989 trial. So, if the Belgian authorities truly cleared the car, why did Kruch, who was a car dealer at the time, sell it for 1/5 the value to Swaters on March 15, 1990? I think the answer to that question is that it was nit a sale - it was all a sham.

Shams do not pass the smell test, much less constitute an arms length sale to convey an ownership that is itself open to question, even by Belgian standards. The above are serious defects for Swaters' claim of ownership.

Serious defects . . . When Florence Swaters decided to sign the HOA, she had her reasons. When I signed the HOA, I too had my reasons- a six-month Sept 13 Goodwood Revival payday while we "stay" Ohio litigation and then "dismiss on distribution." If sale proceeds were not distributed in six-months, we would resume the Ohio litigation. That retained some control for Ford and Lawson. Then something changed. Some wanted to change the HOA.

Bonhams wanted to change in the HOA to a "dimiss prior to distribution." Ford and Lawson said no. Then Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner try to bully Ford and Lawson to accept the change.

If we get to court one day, and I think we will, then Bonhams will lose. HOA expiration issues will be decided in a UK court, assuming no reinstatement of claims in Ohio, one of which is now fraudulent inducement. I think the UK court will find the HOA to have expired, and those that insisted on changing the HOA, and filing suit in the wrong venue, will be found liable. I have had the HOA issue and evidence reviewed by two different large UK lawfirms who know not to bull***** me and know to give me their best professional opinion, with no sugarcoating. My bets remain placed accordingly.

As to those who claim Bonhams had authority to auction, to sell, and to convey title . . . if true, why has it not already happened? The Bonhams auction that hammered a "sale" was over two months ago. The sale was almost half the sales volume for that particular auction. Bonhams has high-powered UK attorneys . . . more than one.

If they could have closed, they would have closed.

So, factor in the above as one considers the ownership issue, or considers the Bonhams auction authority issue.

I agree, this case is fascinating.

Joe

*

 

I guarantee you.... Mr. Frod will not give us an answer about the Florida Investigation UPL [Unlicensed Practice of Law] question.
Most of us here on FChat are smart enough to know, or at least should know what that means.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

UPL has nothing to do with anything in this saga, UPL is about consumer protection...

Law School is not a requirement to become a lawyer...

Licensing is about tracking those who solicit clients from the general public who are looking for legal assistance.

Your fixation with UPL shows a lack of knowledge (ignorance)and weakness by grasping at straws, are the merits of your claims that weak

 

Let Ocean Joe explain why that UPL is meaningless here.

London needs to understand that part. I am sure they are confused about how an indigent un-licensed lawyer with a rusty MG on blocks , a guy with Zero assets , making a Gross of $16,000 a year for the pass 10 years winds up with a $18,000,000 Ferrari when managing his Swiss client’s car collection ( CG) .

Maybe he can explain also how you don’t have to go to Law School to become a Lawyer – that is what Google is for, right?

Cheesey, you are a beginner and deserve no cheese burger. Get a new search engine before you Post , and order some more rubber ducks.

 

So taking your advice and not relying on search engines, I thought I'd make a few inquiries with Bonham's, 'cause I've always found people to be very helpful over the phone.

Anyway the senior guys where all too busy in meetings with lawyers to take the call and I ended up being transferred to a helpful young lady who (in her cute accent), emphatically stated that" the Ferrari had not left the UK," and said something that sounded like "it was not bloody likely either" as the "**** had hit the fan" since the auction and that the "bloody Ferrari" was the talk of the office.

So I wonder what that all means ?
She didn't recall anyone called Max either, strange huh?

 

Maybe stating the obvious but OJ has explained how he got into this deal in an earlier post. Other postings, including the more theatrical ones, dispute this and suggest OJ was acting as Gardners attorney. I do not understand the UPL process but it may have a relevance on the Ohio Contingent dispute if it is determined that OJ was acting as an attorney on this specific case with or without a licence.

OJ has reasoned why the attorney claim is untrue but has yet to explain the reason why the Judge has directed him to return certain documents to Gardner

 

Maybe she wasn't a GRRC member but I am sure she will get her chance at the Revival Auction next week assuming Bonhams are still standing

 

A young lady with a cute accent? Good going !

I just gave Les Wexner’s London solicitor a call. They took my call right away, no cutie transferee . You see, Max Vito is connected.

They said the matter was settled. They now understand the problem was O J, and according to them – OJ’s days are numbered.

I am told they will be racing the car in Europe until Ocean Joe is out of jail. Then, they want to run him over for putting his stink on their car. That will happen at the Revival in 2016 . But, they said not particularly the Goodwood Revival, even the Festival of Speed will do. They said changing the dates of the Revival or the Festival won’t cancel their promise to run him over, even if he manages to delay his own release .

They told me that Les Wexler , the buyer of the 375 Plus, is the richest SOB in Ohio, and well connected. Told me also the 375 Plus is an important car for his collection of over 50 racing Ferraris.

The kind young man that was handling this ‘’ torrid affair ’’ said ‘’ Mr. Wexner is not going to take BS from a con-man in South Florida that is damaging the Ferrari through internet slander ’’.

I’m starting to like Mr. Wexner and will send him an application for VIP membership to the Goodwood GRRC Club – and a Max Vito bumper sticker.

 

Spare him the address of your tailor

 

Aah, a challenge to a pissing contest, or in a more civil form...it's about the braggadocio, or as they say in Texas " all hat and no cattle"... you are doing a good job of placing your backside on public display with your true nature being the focal point

 

Or for those on this side of the pond and not familiar with Texas....All mouth and no trousers

 

OK, focus, please focus.

As to Gardner UPL complaint re: F375 Ford-Gardner relationship, it has for all practical purposes already been decided. This was given to FL bar. See page 76, post 1152.

As to Gardner UPL complaint re: OTHER 2006 - 2012 stuff (spaghetti thrown at wall to see if anything sticks), it is now working its way through normal FL bar UPL process. It is misleading to suggest or claim otherwise.

As to return of Gardner docs, you answered your own question. The docs, if Gardner docs, belong to Gardner, thus he gets them back. Done already, months ago. Had nothing to do with F375.

Some play checkers. Others play chess.

Beneath those in the checkers / chess categories are those others (not you Enigma) who post anonymously to avoid being sued for slander.

Lets keep the focus on the issues, not the shills / clowns.

Joe

*

 

Cheesey...
UPL is about practicing law without a license.
Before you go around accusing people of being ignorant or weak, maybe you should do some serious research, instead of grasping at broken straws from the "half-answer" Ocean Club.

I found a case from Florida that holds more precedential value than your statement of the law regarding Joe Ford's Florida UPL Investigation.
Who needs a law license anyway, when it’s all on Google? Right? It’s just a Consumer Protection technicality UNTIL you get your arse in a ringer.

Here. Study this:

Lesson #1 -

"As Dana was also Marion's lawyer, he likewise breached his fiduciary duty. An attorney in dealings with his client must exercise a much higher standard of good faith than is required in ordinary business dealings or arm's length transactions. Waldeck v. Marks, 328 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Transactions between an attorney and client, where the attorney profits at the client's expense, will, if not void, be closely scrutinized to determine utmost good faith. Id. Business transactions between lawyers and clients are not prohibited by the Canons of Ethics. However, when they are alleged to have been unfair, this type of transaction is presumptively fraudulent and courts place the burden on the lawyer to prove complete good faith and the total absence of fraud or overreaching. Id.; The Fla. Bar v. Rhubottom, 132 So.2d 395 (Fla.1961). The attorneys must show not only that they exercised no undue influence, but also that they gave their clients all the information and advice which it would have been their duty to give if the transaction were made with a stranger. Abstract & Title Corp. of Fla. v. Cochran, 414 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Here, Dana did not meet this burden. Dana used Marion's funds as his personal piggy bank. The trial court erred when it did not set aside Dana's conflicted payments of Marion's funds to himself and his wife, Patricia.

An attorney who self-deals with a client must demonstrate that the transaction was as beneficial to the client as if conducted at arm's length between strangers. Jordan v. Growney, 416 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There is a heavy burden upon the attorney to show that the transaction was not influenced by the attorney/client relationship. Waldeck, 328 So.2d at 493. " The whole burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence the fairness of an agreement purporting to convey a property right from a client to his attorney, and that it was made upon full and adequate consideration, is cast upon the attorney." Id.; Abstract, 414 So.2d at 285; Bolles v. O'Brien, 63 Fla. 342, 59 So. 133 (1912). Morever, where an attorney acquires from his client the subject matter of the litigation (as Dana did here), the burden is on the attorney to show the utmost good faith and fairness. Williams v. Bailey, 69 Fla. 225, 67 So. 877 (1915). As such, Dana should be held liable for breaching his fiduciary duty. Dana was involved in self-dealing as trustee and as attorney with his client and mother, and did not meet his burden of showing that these transactions occurred in good faith and fairness."

That sounds just like Joseph L. Ford III - A.K.A: O.J. Does the law permit an unlicensed attorney to be paid for legal work?

Stay tuned for more of Paraquat's “Law for Cheesey” lessons.
Londoners, did you read this? Presumptively Fraudulent. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds bad.

 

Joey,
I am focused. You said see page 76, post 1152.
Help me out. I can't find post 1152 on page 76.
Explain it. You snowed me on this one.
This says nothing about the UPL complaint and WHAT has been decided?

 

Some recent Florida lawyers have been sent to Federal Prison, over this "higher standard" blah, blah blah...something about a loose diamond ring, and breast implants, depositions from dead people

They were Fchat members, in fact.
Posted here a lot, until a certain point in time.

You might want to pick another state, as an example.....

 

Assuming that Paraquat's Florida rules of law are duplicated in Ohio, the importance of the UPL issue is not whether Joe Ford lacks a piece of paper certifying state bar membership. The importance is that, if Ford's words and deeds did give rise to an attorney-client relationship with Christopher Gardner, then the fact that Ford wound up owning the property as to which CG had retained him, gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that Ford has defrauded CG. In other words, the usual burden of proof -- that a fraud claimant must show it to have been more likely than not that the defendant made false representations intended to induce conduct, reasonable reliance of the representations, and resulting harm -- is reversed. The defendant has the burden to show that at least one of these things is not true.

 

I suspect Joe meant post 1512.

 

You are correct. I meant post 1512. And the relevant attachment of post 1512 is "p32." The relevant passage is: "So as a matter of law, your client was not represented by Joe Ford. You client was represented by Herb Haas." The FL bar has this. IMHO, the FL bar is not likely to ignore the Ohio judge on this Ohio F375 matter about UPL.

I think the Ohio concern, which is for F375 issues, is over for all practical purposes.

Property? Good point. The "property" at issue here belonged to Lawson and was encumbered in a fierce lawsuit. After I was interviewed twice, first by the Clarks, then by Ray Lawson and Krisiti Lawson, they liked me enough to hire me - for my unique legal minded researcher / investigator / organizer skill set -- not as their lawyer. They did not have the money to pay me so we developed the SA and OA contracts where I took a piece of an indefinite and uncertain lawsuit outcome. Its called a personal service contract and in the beginning was very high risk, likely of a negative value if appraised.

Gardner was not invited, not qualified, and would never pass muster to the Clarks or to the Lawsons.

Never forget, Gardner's entire UPL claim is made years after my performance on the Lawson-Ford contract and almost a year into the F375 Financing contract, and only surfaces AFTER I defaulted Gardner for failure to finance as agreed.It is only after the years of my work resulted in a prize that we see Gardner with his vendetta, scheming to steal 0384AM yet again, IMHO.

That is correct. IMHO Gardner deposition testimony is devastating to Gardner UPL claims. Again, IMHO, my team played chess at the Gardner deposition.

Joe

*

 

It strikes me that if Gardner, in all of his various guises here, really thought he had the winning hand versus Joe that he would be jumping up and down to get the Florida arbitration decided first.

Jeff (owner of the maligned wedgie that has been wrongly accused of being brown)

 

At face value that's a very disturbing post. I really hope that Wexner's London solicitor did not say those things that you posted.
As they apparently monitor this thread, I suspect we will find out soon enough.

 

Thank you for the redirection although it would have been helpful to see the complete transcript to understand the context of the discussion.

Herb Haas was also representing Lawson in the Court case but the central allegation made by Gardner was that you were acting as his attorney at the outset before Haas was engaged

Your excerpt is also in contradiction to the full transcript posted by Chrikky on page 78 #1543. I do not have the technology to post the full PDF of the full transcript, but the judge gives an opinion on your early relationship with Gardner, the altered title, a direction to return all of Gardner's documents and an order pay Gardners legal costs

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Going around in circles , see post http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143296643-post1545.html

Also lines 17 -19
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

A judge's musings from the bench, regarding issues that were not formally presented to the court for decision, are not orders. I expect Judge Martin would never have written and signed a ruling that Haas represented Chris Gardner "as a matter of law," with respect to the Heads of Agreement. The term "as a matter of law" doesn't make any sense in this context. Much less would Judge Martin have signed a ruling that there was never a prima facie attorney-client relationship between CG and Joe Ford, with respect to the acquisition of an interest in #0384, based on the evidence that was admitted and the issues that were submitted to the court at the January 17, 2014 hearing.

 

Initially Gardner did not get involved, we interviewed Joe Ford prior to an introduction to Kristi Kleve-Lawson for his help in him putting together a legal team against the lawsuit that the Swater's had served upon Kristi Kleve-Lawson and heirs. We learned years later that Gardner was involved as an silent financier with Joe Ford. Later that partnership fell apart, and Gardner switch sides.

 

I read your post Michael and agree that the two page excerpt is indeed simple and clear as is the fact that Haas represented both Gardner and Lawson at a point in time. However, in isolation, this statement is a stark contradiction to the previous statement given only two months earlier and I would like to see the full and further information before concluding that OJ was never Gardner's attorney and giving the documents back to Gardner was purely a gesture of goodwill on his behalf.

Bill is most helpful in explaining the legal process for us Europeans and as he points out, sessions are not orders. We know that an order in part on the Gardner v Ford case was issued on the 22nd August and OJ was unsuccessful in getting the case dismissed. What we don't know is what was upheld, accordingly, OJ may claim the attorney question has been settled but the evidence disclosed so far has yet to be conclusive