Joe The Supreme Court confirmed the HOA and jurisdiction in London. 28th May 2014 Judge Nadel cancelled case A1001340 and confirmed the HOA and jurisdiction in London. 9th June 2014 Judge Nadel found You/Lawson in contempt of the 19th August 2013 order and ordered a new POA to facilitate the 2014 Goodwood auction. 13th May 2014 Bill has pointed out that all parties (including you) accept London as jurisdiction and yet you abandon this in favour of appeals in Ohio which even if successful will not extinguish claims under the HOA in London I can see that defending yourself in Ohio is the cheaper option but not so for Lawson who is in danger of losing her already diminished "inheritance" paying the cost of these numerous appeals and expanding litigation
Kim, I think you need to learn about Ohio procedure before pontificating. My point by point, all IMHO, reply is: What "Supreme Court?" The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio is the only Court who rendered an appellate decision. The appellate decision said that since no one challenged the venue clause jurisdiction as to the HOA in the appeal before them, they found the venue clause divested jurisdiction from Ohio. Thus, since the trial court had no jurisdiction over the HOA, the August 19, 2013 Order is void – a nullity. That appeal decision does not preclude me from making new claims, especially when new evidence is uncovered. The appellate decision sent the case back to the trial level for reinstatement of my claims – that also means case A1001370 is ONGOING. The fraud and fraud in the inducement claim as to the HOA will show it is not a contract and will show there never was a meeting of the minds, thus the venue clause, like any term in that document, is NOT binding. It takes time to make these moves in Court(s). I MAY make that move in the UK court on a limited jurisdiction basis. I may do it in Ohio. That Order is under appeal, and IMHO Ford/Lawson will win the appeal. 180out agrees. Note Judge Nadel dismissed case A1001370 once before, and how did that work out? Remember, a case is not over until appeals are exhausted. It appears that Bonhams and their UK lawyers are low on that learning curve. The August 19, 2013 Order is void per the appellate decision. That means anything it Ordered me to do is a nullity. It also means I am not in contempt for not following the void Order. No new POA's were issued. No new POA's will be issued. This is one area of law that Bonhams' UK attorney needs to hire independent Ohio counsel to explain as based on reading Bonhams' attorney letters, they are clueless. They probably ought to also call the Ohio BMV and see how badly they were misled about that issue as well. No Ohio attorney will tell Bonhams they can ignore the Ohio BMV or Ohio title law -- litigation was pending. No sale can close. Bill has NOT read the London filings. I have reserved ALL my rights. I predict, based on the new evidence, that the UK court will find Bonhams lacked FULL authority to conduct the auction, Bonhams misrepresented its authority, signatures on the HOA were procured by fraud thus fraud in the inducement, and thus the HOA is NOT a binding contract since signatures were obtained under false pretenses. IMHO the UK court will NOT disrupt or usurp the ongoing Ohio proceedings, i.e A1001370 Swaters v Lawson, and A1306451 Gardner v Ford/Lawson. Copley will win, huge UK costs (I estimate L750,000) will be assessed against Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner. Bonhams/Swaters will be out any Zanotti payments. Gardner is embroiled in a Swiss case as we speak and I think others (Bonhams/Swaters) will be left holding the bag when it comes to paying those UK and Zanotti costs. I am headed to arbitration in Florida and I predict Gardner will be found to have defaulted as financier, bigtime, and he will owe me. The Judge preserved Lawson at 30%. That is by Court order; no one appealed it. Lawson has had a financier in place who has gone further and harder than Gardner ever did as financier, and the lawyers representing her are in Ohio and the UK. We share. Sharing is good. Joe *
Joe, pontificating is the same as "IMHO" in my book but I am always grateful for an education on the American legal system. To summarise (and do correct me if I am wrong) Case A1300604 on ownership is cancelled in favour of London and you are trying to appeal this in the First District of Appeals (A1300604) Case A1306431 on the division of the proceeds between you and Gardner is ongoing and you are going to arbitration under the terms of your agreement. Case A1404305 Ford/Lawson vs Gardner/Swaters is a mystery but is ongoing. Can you elaborate Otherwise, you have been found in contempt on two occasions and are appealing these. To pontificate a little more on your comments You were in contempt when the order was active not void and that is still contempt. You may be successful in your appeal but you will not get your costs back Please show me where in the HOA it says that your POA is required to sell the vehicle. The car has a valid European title and can be exported and registered in the USA. Can you explain why your questionable Ohio BMW will prevent this ? I predict, based on an understanding of the English Legal system, that you have understated your estimation of legal costs and who ever wins will not recover them in their entirety. I also predict that it will be shown that Copley were not as ignorant of the facts as they claim Arbitration cuts both ways. Gardner funded the legal fees and the cost of acquiring Lawsons. In reality, on what basis do you believe he will get nothing and "owe" you ? Did Lawson give the money she received for her share back ? The Court order did not stop you changing the Ohio BMV so why should it stop you altering the percentages in the future ? Another one for appeal ????????
re: European title... Europe cannot issue any subsequent title based on discontinuous ownership... the Ohio BMV has jurisdiction until all Ohio claims are resolved and cleared
I think you got case numbers wrong, so I quote my prior post. Add to the above the London litigation: Bonhams v Lawson, Ford, Gardner, and Swaters, Claim 2014 folio 836 - the "Stakeholder Claim" (A proceeding designed to hold property for distribution to claimants after a UK court hearing. Bonhams had hoped the sale would be a "fait accompli" such that all that was left is to divide up the sale proceeds - FYI only some of the proceeds were deposited. Since the "sale" is not a sale, I expect the stakeholder claim to be terminated since Buyer gets ALL his money back - full hammer plus commission.) Copley Motorcars Corp & Another v Bonhams 1793 Ltd, Swaters, and Gardner, HC14B02817 - the "Rescission Claim" (A proceeding where buyer seeks to have the "sale" rescinded since Bonhams AND two others (a seller and a potential lienholder) misrepresented their ability to convey title and misrepresented status of litigation.) One may make the other moot; they may be consolidated; new evidence may show the HOA, the auction, and the "sale" to all be shams, all based on fraud and fraud in the inducement to get Ford and Lawson to sign the HOA. The new HOA-X evidence may be the most efficient way to resolve all London action as it determines a prerequisite issue -- a prerequites to any sale or auction. I am still not clear how my London attorney introduces the new HOA-X evidence, as it may also demonstrate that any UK jurisdiction other than rescission is improper. Also, the August 19, 2013 Order was void ab initio (from the outset) because the trial court had been divested of jurisdiction to enforce or interpret the HOA. Thus the Aug. 19. 2013 Order is not a lawful order because it was issued by a court without jurisdiction to issue it. Contempt of court is a statutory granted remedy to a court to enforce its lawfully issued orders. One cannot be in contempt for disobeying an unlawfully issued order. This precise issue is being argued on appeal in consolidated case C140270. I expect Lawson and Ford to prevail. The second issue on appeal in C140270 has to do with reinstating claims, which the trial court failed to do. The appeal court's August 18, 2014 Denial of Gardner's Motion to Dismiss that appeal reinforces my core belief that Ford and Lawson will prevail on that issue as well. Ownership is NOT settled - the HOA was a hoax because fraud was used to procure Ford and Lawson signatures. Bottom line: Don't be fraudulent and a case does not end until appeals are exhausted. Joe *
If is was that simple the car would have been seized and returned to Ohio years ago. I am sure OJ can explain the difficulty and why his attempts to have car/proceeds returned to the U.S. have failed. Unfair maybe, but when Swaters purchased the car from a Belgium dealer he acquired good title. He subsequently used it all over Europe with impunity as no European court will place restrictions on a car simply because of the Ohio ownership claim. A great example of arcain English Law was Marche Ouvert (look it up but now repealed). Dating from medieval times, if you purchased goods from designated markets between the hours of sunrise and sunset you acquired good title even if the goods were stolen. Bermondsey Antique Market used to open at 4am, I kid you not, clearly to allow the villains to sell what they had stolen during the night before the Police caught up with them.
On the contrary, I would rate OJ's efforts as very successful to the point where Swater's heirs agreed to sell the car and split the proceeds with the Kleve estate. And that's exactly what would have happened if the parties in the deal had not fallen out with each other. That dispute has added a lot of noise to the process and is ongoing, so it can hardly be described a failure if it hasn't even hit the courts in the UK yet and before all appeals are exhausted everywhere. Kim, you continue to phrase your questions in such a manner that I now wonder what your relationship is to any of the parties to the litigation ? M
My simple conclusion of this, and contrary to some expectations, if the current "sale" is rescinded, no one will touch this car for a decade as any decent interested collector will know he will jump into a nightmarish amount of legal issues . It is damaged goods already, and while I can understand all the conflicting interests at stake, anyone hoping he/ she will get a 100% ownership and then dispose nicely of the car at a new world record ,,is talking too much with agents and not enough with principals who use their own money to collect and don't want to be bothered by legal issues.
+1 And I would like to have thought 14 months ago that the HOA would have united a group of motivated vendors that might have sorted all of this BUT from the get go, the Belgian contingent refused to talk to the Ohio contingent and all parties had to go through Bonhams. Fair enough if Bonhams had of been a totally impartial figure but no they then had to decide, without communication, who they felt were the agents. Surely they were contracted under the HOA, they should have agreed to work by the rules of the HOA. Maybe I am terribly naïve. And that isn't even mentioning the Zanotti "scam".
don't need OJ... you need to get better informed with the laws...the courts have spoken on this topic consistently over the years... stolen property CANNOT be legally transferred, ANYWHERE, those harboring stolen property are at peril... especially when there are appeals in progress... ownership MUST be shown to be continuous... an interloper cannot claim ownership from a discontinuous lineage... all claims must be settled before ownership documents can move forward to establish a valid lineage... physical possession or location of property is not relevant to establishing ownership... post litigation the valid owner can lay claim to their property promptly and recover their property... at that point the court can issue a warrant to assist with recovery and those harboring said property become criminals if not returned
IMHO, the difficulty I experienced is due to others' dishonesty. Progress is slow. Progress is ongoing. That is NOT TRUE. I have the Swaters March 15, 1990 three page acquistion document whereby Swaters admits specifically knowing of a defect in title - i.e. knowing of Kleve's claim that his car was stolen. That document also shows Swaters agreed to hold "seller" harmless as to such Kleve claims. IMHO, since that date and onwards, Swaters actions were nothing more than a sophisticated attempt to launder a stolen car. That is NOT TRUE. First, Swaters counterfeited the car by renumbering it from 0384AM to 0394AM from 1990 to 1999. Before 2000, the only times Swaters shows the car is in Belgium and only as 0394AM. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, then post it for all to see. Then, starting around 2000 using documents we KNOW are forgeries, Swaters claims he bought the $3,500,000 car from Kleve for $625,000. Magically, at that point in time, 0394AM becomes 0384AM, and only then does it begin to appear outside of Belgium as 0384AM. Swaters KNEW the Ferrari factory never made a 375 Plus with VIN 0394AM, so in my view that was a deliberate fraud used to conceal a stolen car. If you have Ferrari factory record evidence that shows otherwise, then post it for all to see. Belgium had a similar law in 1990, designed to protect COMSUMERS who buy a car at auction and pay near MARKET PRICE. If that car turns out to be stolen, a victim can reclaim for up to 3 years provided he reimburses the consumer. Swaters March 15, 1999 agreement shows he is NOT a consumer, and shows he KNEW of defects that prevented any genuine conveyance of title. The March 15, 1990 acquistion document also shows Swaters knew he did not acquire clear title DESPITE the Belgian prosecutor's February 14, 1990 release of 0384AM to the importer Kruch. Again, were that Belgian prosecutor's release to importer Kruch indicative of giving clear title to importer Kruch, why did importer Kruch sell 0384AM for less than 1/10 its value to Swaters on March 15, 1990? Kruch is a Brussels, Belgium car dealer with international exposure. Why not take some time, promote the car, and sell to someone else for full price? That is a really big WHY -- really big -- please read between the lines. WHY sell at 1/10th the price? If you have evidence that shows otherwise, then post it for all to see. OK, moving forward . . . I just got a copy of the Copley v Bonhams UK court complaint. It is 23pp long and impressively documented. Bonhams DID give Copley written assurances BEFORE the auction. IMHO Bonhams should have already settled because the evidence is irrefutable and because resistance will cost them as a business as it will expose how they operated. IMHO the Copley claim will prevail and show that Bonhams acted fraudulently. Copley has not yet seen the new HOA fraud and fraud in the inducement evidence against Swaters and Bonhams. Joe *
How does Copley plead around the rule that even an intentional fraud -- where the seller knew its representations were false and uttered them with intent to cause the buyer to change its position -- is not actionable if the buyer knew of the falsity? Did the fraud of Swaters and Bonhams with respect to the formation of the HOA -- of which presumably Joe Ford and Kristi Lawson were the sole victims -- cause an injury to Copley?
Bill, I would say yes but indiretly. Because of the fraud, Bonhams was able to make assurances to Copley Regards, Art S. PS. Note: i am not an attorney.
Michael, you have misinterpreted both my point and my opinion on this case. Before you jump on the OJ bandwagon of assassinating anyone who questions his opinion or dares to ask difficult questions, I suggest you review my posts on this thread. To be clear. I have no relationship with anyone involved in this dispute and have no interest in the outcome. I may not share the same opinion as others on the parties involved but I have been open in my support of OJ in exposing the injustice against Karl Kleve and admire his tenacity in doing so. The Ohio Contingent should rightly share in the sale of such an important car that has been preserved. What I will continue to question is the motivation and actions after the HOA settlement as this has now very little to do with justice and a lot to do with money (with Karl Kleves heirs getting comparatively little)
My WAG is that this car will stay with the present owner for as long as he draws breath. Mr. Wexner wanted this car for his collection, and now it is his. It's not going anywhere. As a hard-nosed businessman, Mr. Wexner has initiated the Bonhams litigation solely according to the principle, never to leave money on the table. This litigation presents an opportunity, with a high chance of success, to receive a good discount on the purchase price. Furthermore, one thing that people may not have picked up on, but based on the contract documents at the back of the Bonhams catolog, the contract of sale for #0384 is between Swaters, Gardner, and Copley/Wexner. Bonhams could not rescind that sale even if it wanted to. Also, although it is an extremely invidiousness analogy, like the gangster boss of fiction if not fact, Bonhams cannot be seen to be weak in this case, to be the source of a quick and profitable settlement payment every time an auction winner suffers buyer's remorse or otherwise is unhappy with the thing he or she has bought. Bonhams must stand firm and maintain its posture, that it is a mere conduit, that no one forces the buyers to participate, and that buyer beware is its Golden Rule. I expect these kinds of bumps in the road are a frequent occurrence at all the high dollar auction houses. A cost of doing business, all in a day's work.
Bonhams must stand firm? . . . IMHO Bonhams, with Swaters and Gardner approval, rolled over EASILY for 3 Million Pounds on a spurious claim by a Sr. Jose Zanotti Cavazzoni. I have Cavazzoni's attorney's demand letter - it is bizarre and not credible. You are correct as to the contract of sale being between Copley and Swaters/Gardner, while the auction contract is between Buyer and Bonhams. Since the documents are now available to the public, below is Copley's UK Claim form sheets 1 and 2, with addresses redacted, to eliminate speculation as to the actual claims. The item that catches my eye is the tracing relief requested by Claimants -- they want to trace what happened to the L10,984,200 or approximately $18,250,000 once it was paid to Bonhams. IMHO that request should send shivers down some spines. And the Copley claim does not include any reference to the new evidence which will basically show that Bonhams and Swaters conspired to fraudulently obtain Ford and Lawson signatures on the HOA, and that, as a result, there NEVER was a settlement and Bonhams NEVER had authority. More on that later. It takes time to make these moves in court(s). Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
all the mechanizations leading to the sale are ancillary and become moot, if the Ohio Courts and Ohio BMV cannot forward a clear lineage to ownership... Copley/Wexner cannot take possession while a clear and valid owner has NOT been established by the Ohio Courts... the popular cliche' "follow the money" becomes the mantra to "follow the money"... any breach not closed in the trail of ownership ( money ) leaves the ownership open to peril of litigation... stolen property cannot be transferred... title / ownership trumps everything... Bonhams and others are relying on contracts/agreements to protect their intensions and interest, contracts only refer to ownership, do NOT determine ownership, as such they are moot and ineffective until the ownership issues are totally resolved... with no clear ownership present Bonhams has nothing to convey to effect a valid transfer... as simply by offering the property for sale creates a fraud in absence of ability to a clear transfer. Bonhams in effect is selling stolen property
Joe, why you are concentrating on litigation in Ohio when all of your complaints arise from the HOA in London ? Even if you succeed in resurrecting the ownership case in Ohio there is still a bigger mess to settle this side of the pond
as long as Ohio is unable to forward clear lineage to property ownership which subsequent documents can rely on, makes any subsequent document ineffective... basic ownership / title law... any aberrations in lineage is cause for a defect, and subject to further litigation if not properly closed or reconciled... contracts like HOA and contracts with Bonhams are voided by their inability to make claims as described in the contracts...making false claims is fraud... selling stolen property is fraud
Lawson and Ford cancelled their Heads of Agreement ("HOA") Powers of Attorney ("POA") and demanded the return of Ohio Parts and Ohio Docs. (The POA's only referred to the HOA's Sept 2013 auction, and we made it abundantly clear that the HOA had expired - it was OVER. In Sept of 2013 until about Dec 2013, I was open to renegotiating, and that did not happen.) Back then I believed the HOA simply expired. Now, based on new evidence, I believe that the HOA was never a contract because new evidence will show Bonhams fraudulently procured my and Lawson signatures. Ford cancelled on Sept. 24, 2013, a few days after the HOA expired. [Ferrari Chat p.52, post #1025] Lawson cancelled on Feb. 18, 2014 and sought return of the Ohio Parts and Docs. Bonhams Feb. 28, 2014 reply to Lawson's Feb. 18, 2014 cancellation is below, with a second copy having my beliefs in the black boxes. Below is Ohio's theft statute. Maybe what Bonhams did is conversion. I realize that an appeal was pending so Bonhmas will claim reliance on the August 19, 2013 Order that enforced the Sept 2013 auction -- and no other. That is why any reliance on the Aug 19, 2013 Order is misplaced -- it applied only to the Sept. 2013 auction. By May 28, 2014 when the appeal decision came down, Lot 320 should have been discreetly withdrawn. I will leave that to the lawyers. Under no circumstance was Bonhams authorized to do what it did. And Kim, I AM already in both UK and US venues, litigating issues appropriately in each. I expect the UK or the USA court to declare the HOA was NOT a valid contract and that Bonhams and Swaters procured Ford and Lawson signatures by fraud. Resolution of that single issue can bring an efficient end to both UK cases. My attorneys will advise how/when/where to assert that. Maybe it will be litigated as part of the Copley claim. Again, I leave that to the attorneys. IMHO, with the HOA not being a contract, the entire auction and the two resultant UK proceedings were and are a huge waste of UK court time and resources. It is my belief that after procuring Ford and Lawson signatures by fraud, Bonhams ran roughshod, disregarded our rights, and disregarded repeated warnings. I believe they will soon be held to account. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Joe, the email talks about you and Dave Smith trying to sell the car privately before the sale. What price were you offering it for and did you get any interest ?
The timing of the agreement to pay major bucks to pay off Zanotti suggests that Bonhams, Swaters and Gardner had a significant fear that Zanotti had the ability to damage the June 2014 auction, either by enjoining it or by clouding the title and thereby depressing the bidding. So who paid the money to make Zanotti drop his claim? If it was Bonhams, then I agree that they failed to stand firm. However, if the terms of the Zanotti payoff was that he would get his $2 or $3 million from the proceeds of the auction -- i.e., that the *Sellers* would be funding the payoff -- this suggests that Bonhams treated the Sellers to some serious arm-twisting; that Bonhams did anything *but* wimp out. Those on the outside looking in can only guess. But it would seem that Zanotti did get his money. It also seems that the source of that money was the proceeds of the sale, i.e., the source was the Sellers' money. All in all, Bonhams does not emerge from the Zanotti affair as a weak-willed patsy. Anything but. The other thing I get from the Zanotti affair is that it belies Wexner's posture that he wants to unwind the deal, to give the car back to the Sellers in exchange for the return of his money. The net money after the Zanotti payoff is presumably available for that purpose. But the Zanotti money is gone. Who is going to fund that part of a rescission? Zanotti does not seem a likely source, nor do Swaters or Gardner. Wexner must know that there is no way that the Sellers can fund a rescission. Therefore his request for rescission is a legal posture, intended only as leverage to get as much of his purchase money back from Swaters and Gardner as he can, while of course he retains possession of #0384. Just reading the tea leaves and seeing how they line up, which is all we spectators can do.
