375+ # 0384

Changing sides ?

Gardner has persuaded Florence Swaters to hand over 50% of her car

As the saying goes, with friends like that who needs enemies

 

OK, Focus, Please Focus!!!

There are not two UPL complaints against Joe Ford ( ie : The 375 Plus issue and Spaghetti ) so don’t pretend there is .

The 375 Plus Joseph Ford shill/con/fraud is not just a formal complaint, it’s pass that stage now. It’s now a full fledged criminal investigation against Joseph L. Ford III that resulted from a the pre-investigation compliant. It involves Ford’s involvement while acting as Gardner’s attorney, collecting legal fees, filing legal documents , stealing escrowed money and the Ford’s purchases of cars for Gardner’s collection – one of which ( the 375 Plus) he illegally manevered into his own name. All of this ‘’unique attorney service’’ ie: Spagetti , was the same time of the purchase of the 375 Plus package (early 2010) . Ford knew the routine as CG’s lawyer/servant/legal advisor/agent and fiduciary. Ford performed that role many times over the years for Gardner. On the 375 Plus, Ford decided to steal.

According to the documents I see, pertaining to the 375 Plus, Ocean Joe wasn’t publishing books for CG, he wasn’t Captain of CG’s Hatteras, he wasn’t CG’s pilot, he wasn’t an architect on CG’s buildings, no, no, none of that. Joseph L. Ford III was using his legal talents , his ‘’ I won’t be cheated in a contract or court’’ skill set in law, to prepare a contract where CG was the principle in the purchase of the 0384 AM bundle from Lawson.

This particular ‘’Ferrari Plus’’ time, CG sent Ford – as his attorney - to Kristie Lawson to buy the package . The rest of the story is all about a lawyer and how he conspires to defraud his client. No legal license, no money, no investment – just stolen CG documents , time as an unemployed pauper ( not retired) and using the Courts of Ohio as a ‘’Posting Board’’ for documents stolen from Gardner during the attorney-client relationship. Plus, his secondary ‘’Posting’’ board - a subscription to Ferrari Chat.

Judge Martin’s court room statements said this on November 14 2013 about Ford being Gardner’s lawyer :

Quote from Judge Martin November 14 2014 , starts on page 5, line 17 of Martin’s statements on Ford ( will post the entire court minutes as soon as Tim Smith sends them ) -

Judge Martin at page six of the November ruling said:
QUOTE ....... ‘’’ He ( Ford) acted as an attorney several times in this incident. He acted as an attorney for Mr. Gardner. As such, he cannot reveal those confidences that he has obtained, no more than Mr. Haas could or anything else. He's simply prohibited from doing so. Mr. Ford also documented all that in e-mails. I mean, the biggest — one the technology changes since I started practicing law from 1982 and today are traumatic, as we all know, and what we used to allege was said or not said doesn't even have to be alleged anymore, because people like Mr. Ford type up emails. It's there. He acted as an attorney. In the one e-mail it was cited, and he quote, unquote, "put his attorney hat on." He was giving Mr. Gardner legal advice, which Mr. Gardner was seeking. And that's a problem, in that he's -- he's proceeding against whatever interests Mr. Gardner might have here. There is at least, under Ohio law, he would be required, since he's acting as Mr. Gardner's attorney to send Mr. Gardner a letter saying I'm acting as your attorney, but I have a separate interest. That's if he could do both at the same time, which is very debatable. I don't know what it is in Louisiana, and I don't think he does either, because, you know, he's handled, like, four legal matters in his life, by his admission. I think he's actually handled more than that because I know of four legal matters he's participated in just from Smith ( Tim Smith / Lawson’s attorney) and listening to three days of testimony.’’ Judge Martin of Ohio



There is one shill and clown dominating this thread, and it is OJ . The spaghetti thrown on on the wall , made it’s way on Ford’s que ball.

Don’t forget I am Max Vito and I do not own a Prune Wedgey.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Max
The problem with this theory is that Gardner, by your admission, has had a long association with OJ, and Gardner would have known exactly what OJ was or wasn't. (In previous matters Gardner and OJ had worked on together, eg: Gardners Bugatti & Merc in France, OJ did not act as an attorney, and one was hired. That's been the modus operandi established between OJ & Gardner.

In the case of 0384, the agreement default between Garder and OJ was triggered by the failure to re-imburse OJ for legal fees paid to Whitman.
Post http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143293152-post1499.html

So how can Gardner serioulsy claim that OJ was acting as his attorney, when in fact one had been specifically hired with Gardners knowledge and agreement to pursue to the 0384 case.?
Won't fly.

 

If it returns to America, the owner stood to lose 100% of it.

 

There are parts of London where the same risk applies

 

Is the High Court one of them?

 

Debbie , start telling the truth for a change and stop sinning. Don’t you follow your ‘’group sessions’’ advice?

The Lawson legal team was put together with Joe Ford doing it for Ford’s master the Ferrari collector : Christopher Gardner. The Clarks role was side lined almost immediately as part of the Ford decision as lead council on the Legal Team. Debbie and Dave Clark aka/ ‘’Guru’’ where selectively removed from the early stages for purely a financial reason, and seen as a liability by Ford’s chess type master-mind.

The Clarks are small time car hustlers. They ‘’broker’’ cars for wealthy clients. They disclose private information on those clients as they see fit to use. They did this with Tom Price, and with Peter Rey and Hugh Taylor in the UK, they did it with CG in Switzerland and they will do it over and over. They play the field as a confidant. That gathers a thin film of creditability - but for a wealthy collector – it’s the kiss of death. Simply, because the Clarks are greedy smooth talkers, nothing more. They are like Penny Stock phone salesmen.

Ford saw that during the Clark interview for Gardner, the Clarks were of no use. That was why Ford correctly cautioned the Clarks involvement within days of the Gardner purchase, February 2010. He cancelled all Clark agreements instantly and put them in default. That a punishment that Ford serves out.

When CG got the offer of the Lawson purchase it was from the Clarks. As Hugh Taylor told me the entire package of 375 Plus parts and rights could be bought for less than $250,000 – before the Lawson lawsuit. Other Ferrarist received that offer, none wanted to defend Nut-Case Kleve’s rights against Jacques Swaters. Gardner agreed to buy the ‘’parts’’ for $105,000, plus defending Lawson against the Swaters claim.

The 375 Plus purchase was for all cash , and not services rendered in some phony baloney ‘’Service Contract’’ mentioned in post #1943. Gardner agreed to pay and did pay Lawson in full, for 100%.

It was the Clarks that offered CG the Lawson package of parts as the Clarks offered CG several cars . The Clarks sent Tom Price to Gardner’s Swiss place to do a deal or two. The Clarks connect weathy car collecting clients. The problem is, they are devious. That is why they can align with Joe Ford instantly. They both have three things in common with OJ – 1. utter greed 2. church poor ( nothing to loose) 3. dangerous to deal with.

CG sent his attorney, Ford, in for the 375 Plus purchase. That attorney, with his unique legal minded researcher / investigator / organizer skill set /ability to prepare motions/appeals/court filing/witness list/ mapping out legal strategies far beyond the game of chess – actually paid Lawson on day one with Gardner’s money. From that point on – The ‘’Clark’s’’ were OUT of the deal, as they are today.

CG was indeed the silent purchaser of the Lawson parts. Placed that way on advice of his attorney, Joe Ford. When Lawson received the money and sold 100% of the 0384 Plus, Ankle Deb and Guru knew nothing – because both were out on instructions from the lead attorney - Joseph L. Ford .

The Clark’s learned of CG’s involvement when Ford got caught red handed stealing. That’s when Gardner asked the Clark’s for a truthful statement to summit to Thor Gottesman – it was in October 2013. They agreed, but only after writing to CG a demand of $175,000 for the truth. CG’s response, and in the court records it’s clear ‘’ CG would not pay for the ‘’Clarks’’ telling the truth’’ . Within days, the Clarks ran to Ford and he agreed to pay them.

These facts should tell the entire car collector community to stay clear of ‘’ Ankle-Bracelet’’ Annie, and the ‘’Guru’’ aka Debbie and Dave Clark. Collectors and Ferrari owners should be warned and remember this San Diego tag team.

 

WRX Mike -

Ford worked for CG . Ford provided legal services to CG. Ford acted for the principle CG. Ford has never been qualified to be a principle in any Ferrari. It takes money to own a Ferrari. Ford has always been an indigent, and he dresses bad. I know about dressing up, believe me, it cost money.

There was no default by CG. It’s the type of default Ford uses in defaulting Bonhams and Swaters. It’s a mock up. Ford says it, and he believes it. He post it, and he believes it. As soon as his lawyers catch on, he bails on them or they get rid of him. There is never a legal basis for the default – it’s all the insanity of a criminal mind. It’s the same old system of manipulation by a con-man, caught red handed.

CG paid every lawyer involved on behalf of Lawson , and Bruce Whitman also. Whitman dropped Ford as a client because Ford concealed the facts, both from Judge Nadel and from Whitman. Ford withheld the fact that CG was a principle in the Ferrari transaction. Once that cat was out of the bag, Whitman threw him out and CG choked the money funneled to Ford. Ford demanded from CG to be paid for his attorney work helping Herb Haas. CG refused to pay him. Ford was forced to stand in the soup line. He got no soup. Then, once hungry, he got mad. Then mad , and hungry, he justified stealing the Ferrari and making it his. Problem is, he can’t drive. He lives in OPS. ( Other Peoples Shadows)

So your statement ‘’ How can Gardner claim that OJ was acting as his attorney, when in fact one had been specifically hired with Gardner’s knowledge ‘’’ ?

Where is it written that CG is required to have just one lawyer ? At any given time, CG had several lawyers doing different task on the Ferrari 0384AM deal. Joseph L. Ford III was one of his lawyers on the Ferrari purchase. CG authorized Lawson to receive payment and Ford to fly to buy Ray Lawson and Kristie a bowl of Skyline chili and give them five grand. Ford was acting for Gardner to grow the 375 plus deal, but told Gardner ‘’ Don’t go sell it’’. That 375 Plus deal started just as a purchase of parts. Ford made it into a cash flow machine for himself and his sons. That was early 2010 when Ford wore the lawyers hat.

Haas was hired in late 2011.

So what is all this about, right? Obviously you don’t get it Mikey .

So here it is in two words : Presumptively Fraudulent

That means, the MG stays on blocks.

Busted !

 

Max ( and associates ) has no shortage of blather , in attempt to deflect substance

reminds of the commercial from years past when the question was posed ..."where's the beef..."

if they looked closely they may discover a novel concept for them, that legal systems run on merits not blather

 

Here is an excerpt from another Florida case:

"We reject Silverman's claim that he be entitled to keep the monies paid to him under a fee agreement which was declared void ab initio, based on quantum meruit. See King v. Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf, P.A., 709 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 725 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1998) (when fee agreement between attorney and client is void because it fails to comply with the Rules regulating the Florida Bar, the attorney is entitled to recover on the basis of quantum meruit.). This is not a situation where the agreement between the parties was merely void because it failed to comply with the Rules regulating the Florida Bar. Here, Silverman knowingly engaged in the representation of Vista Designs in Florida even though he was not admitted to practice before this State. His representation of Vista Designs continued even after suit was filed in the Middle District of Florida, a court before which he was also not admitted to practice. Clearly, his actions went beyond mere legal support or consulting. While Silverman conferred a benefit upon Vista Designs by providing expert legal services which may have assisted in the settlement of its legal dispute with Trend Marketing, public policy, however, dictates that a party should not benefit from its wrongdoing. Accordingly, this matter is reversed as to Vista Designs' counterclaim and remanded for further proceedings to determine the amount Vista Designs is to be reimbursed for monies paid to Silverman for legal fees under the void contract."

What have learned here?

Joe Ford III, is unlicensed and has engaged in the Unlicensed Practice of Law. Florida law says, "his interest in the Ferrari is presumptively fraudulent". He has to prove the value of his contribution to recover anything. The law cited above says, “public policy, however, dictates that a party should not benefit from its wrongdoing”.

So, ask yourself Cheesey; “What does this all mean?”

I will tell you what it means.... The natural order is preserved. Losers are still losers. Winners are still winners. It couldn’t come out any other way.

 

This will also come as news to most litigation attorneys as well.

 

really ?... you cannot be serious... you are showing your backside... it's a good thing that you are not a lawyer and not licensed to practice law... you would be laughed out of court while any client of yours would be demanding a refund of any fees advanced and looking to litigate against you for malpractice...

 

Cheesey,

I'd like to congratulate you on your well earned diploma from The Joseph L. Ford School of Law, and now you can officially start practicing law. I also would like to comemend you on your stupendous ability to learn so quickly with such a pretentious style. It only took you two lessons in Merit to affirm your literacy level of law.

Your coherent knowledge of title law, stolen goods, theft, recovery and settlement agreements, exceeds that of your curator Mr. Ford. You don’t need a license to commence practicing law in Florida, where I believe a partnership is your best interest there.

For me, your smirk answers and posts evade and avoid the current issues at hand and are not contributory, because, they lack simple intelligence. I wouldn’t want to be a passenger on your plane, that's for sure!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I don't know if this entry has any connection to a Florida arbitration, but here it is, entered yesterday in the on-line docket in the Gardner v. Ford, Hamilton County no. A 1306451:

9/8/2014 -- ENTRY REFERRING CASE TO ARBITRATION

I am also wishing we had more detail about this entry (meaning I wish we had a copy of the order):

8/20/2014 -- ENTRY GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The usual suspects are surprisingly miserly regarding this written order.

 

+1

I assume the arbitration direction arises from the he profit sharing agreement between Ford and Gardner

 

Must be some interesting goings on since all the protagonists have been quiet for a while.

 

some of them must be reviewing the Saturday morning cartoon shows to come up with more material

 

The physical assets all seem to be in the possession of the new owner. The legal claims of the parties, including Bonhams and the new owner, appear to be all bogged down in litigation. The Swaters v. Lawson and Gardner v. Ford cases are going to be quiet for awhile. Swaters is in the Court of Appeals, where it's likely to remain for at least six months, and Gardner is off to arbitration. An arbitration is unlikely to be finalized in less than three months. I believe there's another Ohio case with Joe Ford as the plaintiff, and one or more cases filed in the London High Court. These are in their infancy and are unlikely to generate any post-worthy news for months to come. Unless Max has some new insults to hurl, this thread will be drifting off the bottom of the web page like all the others.

 

180 Out, your posts have been very helpful and educational. Thank you for the time you've spent in research and writing. As one who reads this thread for recreation as much as anything, I expected it would end this way. If the physical assets are with the winning bidder at the auction, and Bonham's has been paid, as they are reported to have been (latest SCM), then I confess I have little to no interest in how the litigation winds up and how the $18.0M is ultimately divided up.

 

I dunno, George...

If the money does not reach the Kleve estate, the thieves 'got away' with stealing the car, IMO.

I guess Karl and Jacques have both settled their accounts, by now.......there's no protests or arbitration at that reckoning.

 

..."physical assets are with the winning bidder..." is confusing...

the impression was that the winning bidder was litigating against Bonhams... normally when one litigates, they refuse to take possession, in this case the bidder was demanding full refund plus damages...

 

BigTex, I completely agree, and it was wrong for me to say I had no interest in the financial outcome. I will be disappointed if the Kleve estate is not ultimately made whole. For me, though, it seemed that as long as the physical possession of the car and parts was up in the air the amazing drama of this thread would continue. If it all devolves into nothing but litigation with the possession of the physical bits being a fait accompli, it will be hard to remain as engaged as I have been.

 

You are correct about the long established working relationship, the licensed Ohio attorneys that WERE hired, and the Gardner default for failure to finance as agreed. The Gardner unauthorized practice of law ("UPL") claims (41pp complaint to the Florida Bar with 5" thick transcripts) made against me will not fly.

You are correct in your interpretation of that case and its total inapplicability to the Gardner claims made against me.

You are correct. Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner are being sued the buyer for rescission and misrepresentations, made fraudulently or recklessly. The buyer has not taken possession, though I am told he had rented space in London to do so. Service on the defendants is underway. IMHO, the highly likely outcome, based on my view of documents, is that the Buyer will prevail, and the three defendants will be ordered to pay back all monies ($18 Million +) plus buyer's solicitor/barrister fees, as well as be out-of-pocket their own solicitor/barrister fees. One must also remember the headline risk (negative publicity).

You are correct. A recent order was entered to that effect, sending the Ford v Gardner F375 issues to a Florida arbitration per the Ford-Gardner F375 financing agreement (posted below). The other Joseph and the Justin names is Gardner lashing out at my sons. The Lawson v Gardner issues do not go to arbitration, and may only be stayed. That "stay" aspect is under consideration.


Stay tuned. Beware of roadside distractions. The court orders are what matters, especially the appellate orders.

Watch out for those anonymous latecomers that keep trying to throw sand in the gas tank.

And . . . . you're gonna need more popcorn.


Joe


*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thank you Ocean Joe. Re-engaging ...

 

I think I've missed out a lot on this thread.

Here's a picture from Hans Turner in its original, gorgeous shape.

Matt
Image Unavailable, Please Login