375+ # 0384

Just out of curiosity to see where Max was or is, done some searching and lo and behold found this interesting web site, <removed> any of you people seen this as Max Vito's on here......
PS. Been about for a long time......

 

Fresh popcorn please!

Marcel Massini

 

Don't forget the Jägermeister.

Max is back.

 

Hahahahahaha!! Bizarro F-Chat! No one can accuse Mr. Vito of being boring, that's for sure...

What a riot....

 

What a flipping joke, welcome to my new site www.gooogle.com. That's with 3 zeros dudes.............. LOL

 

Funny coincidence the above website's intro page has THREE photos of Onebugatti's 500 F2 #0210F ...

 

+1 It isn't funny, its hilarious. A little like our new friend having run across the website as you do. Yep lets bring back MAX and get yelled at daily and called dinky car collectors and otherwise generally abused. Lets see what links all of these things together.

 

Hi people, great to have a conversation with like minded Ferrari members. Looking back over some of the threads, which I have remembered, god this has been going on a long time now from when I met a chappie down in the South of France at an F1 event, this chap introduced himself as 'Max', after a few drinks and 1 of you was right "Warsteiner" he showed me this forum and quoted "watch this it is going to explode" will be like a white knuckle ride on a Cavellino. The rest you guys know and is history. As for "his" new site well he does have an eye for some lovely models........

 

New site?

As the Turks say "may he be Caliph in Egypt"

 

Who saw that coming?

 

Its my cake-day today and while I wish no ill towards anyone, should I take Max's banning as a gift from the Fchat gods?

The thread may be more boring but at least we can actually discuss the matter at hand and he will be back for the sequel.

 

With Max denied this outlet, his Nordic supermodel friends had better hide the bottle of little blue pills.

 

Max spiced up the thread, gave an alternative perspective and promoted the sale of popcorn

 

+1 LOL, although I note that OneBugatti is still with us..... Oh that's right he isn't Max?

I have just finished reading billionaires vinegar by Benjamin Wallace about counterfeit wine and the main counterfeiter, a German, Hardy Rodenstock, had exactly the same pitch as Max. Always beginning any communication, by claiming to be friends with someone posh/ celebrity and/ or expert in their field OR mentioning a star-studded event they were attending. Then and only then will they make some passing mention to the question, usually claiming exasperation and being bored with these questions before attacking the person that asked the question. And then ending where it began with another boast. And never once actually saying anything at all. Something like this

Sorry for the lack of reply I was partying with three Swedish supermodels. To answer your questions, I am so tired of telling you the answers, I told you last week blah blah blah. BTW you are a lying scumbag and I have contacted the FBI, KGB, my mate keith down at the pub and the new owner of #0384AM and they are all going to turn you into dinky car collectors blah blah blah. Next week I will be at Goodwood with the Queen. Love Max.......

 

And added little if anything by way of new accurate information.

 

As the Ferarri community knows:

Buyer has sued Bonhams, Swaters, and Christopher Gardner HC14B02817 to rescind sale.

Bonhams has initiated a Stakeholder Proceeding Claim 2014 Folio 836, hoping that mere placement of some of the hammer price with the UK court would satisfy Swaters/Gardner/Lawson/Ford such that they would allow sale.

I do not see how Bonhams can prevail in their claim that they acted on 1) Heads of Agreement authority, OR 2) Gardner or Swaters "representations," OR 3) the "Conditions of Sale" clauses.

IMHO there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT REASONS TO ARGUE why Bonhams will lose:

1) Regardless of one's belief on the expiration (or not) of the Heads of Agreement ("HOA"), Ford and Lawson withdrew their Powers of Attorney, as consignors have the right to do, at which point the Lot should be withdrawn and, at best, a withdrawing consignor is liable for a commission.

2) Bonhams was given repeated, early, formal US and UK attorney (see below for just two of several) notice that ownership litigation was ongoing (Ohio A1001370 and A1306451) and that the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles blocked any conveyances of title with litigation pending. That OHIO BMV letter also puts Bonhams on notice that Gardner's ownership claims are mere claims, while Ford and Lawson remain the OFFICIALLY named owners unless and until adjudicated otherwise. The OHIO BMV title chain also shows that the Ohio title Swaters obtained from an unauthorized Kleve agent was OFFICIALLY cancelled and voided by the Ohio BMV on April 20, 2001 with Karl Kleve while alive - in other words, Swaters, like Gardner, is a mere unadjudicated challenger to the Ford/Lawson title as well. Further, Swaters 1999 documents contain her father's partner's Sept. 2, 1999 admission that Karl Kleve was the owner of the car and that they were attempting to buy it, per those documents.

3) Bonhams knew Gardner and Swaters could not HONESTLY make the representations made when they signed Bonhams' "Conditions of Sale" documents on June 27, 2014, just hours before the auction. I recall Swaters'' Ohio attorney emailing us for consent the night before the auction - they knew consent was lacking - the auction may occur, but the sale would not.

4) UK law imposes a duty on anyone claiming to be a seller (i.e. Swaters and Gardner) that he have title to the goods, and that IS part of Bonhams' Conditions of Sale and cannot be waived or side-stepped by contract language.

5) New evidence, which I must keep close to the vest for the time being.


Below are the pertinent excerpts from Bonhams' UK Conditions of Sale.

------ Maybe 180Out can argue the pro's and con's.

IMHO, what Bonhams did is BAD business and BAD for business, and Bonhams court antics are unquestionably disingenuine -- a massive and deliberate waste of everyone's time and money.

Joe


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

 

Thanks for the update Joe although you have not told us how the other and most important cases are going ?

Where are you on your appeals trying to get the case A1001370 reinstated and back to Ohio ?

Have you got an arbitration hearing yet to settle your dispute with Gardner ?

Otherwise, the stakeholder claim from Bonhams is against both the BC and the OC. Are you going to defend it jointly or as individuals as you clearly have different views on the validity of the sale ?

Finally, what you said to Bonhams before the sale was ignored and they are defending the claim from Copely Motors. I agree with Bill 180's view that Bonham will fight this to the end and that Wexner will likely keep the car after a face saving settlement. What ever you say about the validity of the HOA, and whether or not the sale is rescinded, we can be sure that Bonhams will be blaming you and Lawson for the mess and seeking legal redress, if they have not done so already

 

Bonhams cannot have any action against the OC, the OC withdrew their authorities to sell...leaving the BC as the only party to a sale... Bonhams also assumed that the OC did not have any standing and were accordingly dismissed as being irrelevant, as evidenced by ignoring their notices of action the BC engaged in further illegal action by getting involved in settlement action with Zanotti... BC does not have any standing in authorizing any sale unless the Ohio courts reaffirm their ownership status... as of the most recent posts reveal only the OC have ownership standing negating any action taken by the BC... the OC removed themselves from the sale, leaving Bonhams selling a car by someone other than owners.

 

To be correct. Only 2/3 of the OC withdrew their consent. The Ohio court cancelled the title action giving jurisdiction to London under the terms of the HOA and this remains the case unless OJ's appeal is successfull.

 

Kim,

The only jurisdiction that MAY go to London is as to HOA disputes, not as to ownership disputes as one side in this dispute argues. If the HOA is upheld as a contract (and I do not think it will be), the HOA venue clause is not a bulk transfer to London of all claims and issues. If the HOA is not upheld as a contract (as I think will be the case), nothing was ever agreed to be transferred to London.

I can assure you that new evidence will show the HOA is NOT a contract due to fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation by two of the HOA signees.

Yet a new issue arises as to Bonhams duties and the Powers of Attorney. When one accepts to act under a Power of Attorney as Bonhams did for months until terminated, one owes a fiduciary duty. IMHO, we have documented Bonhams actions that show it acted in an extremely partisan manner and in fact worked to subvert Ford and Lawson rights. I think Ms. Swaters even has a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Bonhams because she issued a Power of Attorney to Bonhams as well.

And another thing, the appeal court did not rule that the HOA was a contract. The appeal court sent the case back to the trial court saying that AS TO THE APPEAL ISSUES BEFORE THEM IN THAT PARTICULAR APPEAL, no one disputed the HOA venue clause validity, thus the Aug. 19, 2013 Order was a nullity. Then the Appeal Court ordered the reinstatement of my claims, one of which DOES dispute the validity of the HOA, though that claim had not yet been briefed or heard, thus no order to appeal or not. Rest assured, once reinstated, it will be updtaed and motioned for a hearing with new, more compelling evidence.

The present appeal is months away from being decided and I predict it will reverse the trial court's June 9, 2014 order such that my claims are reinstated. Further still, one can re-open a case even if that case was closed on grounds of new evidence of fraud even if the appeal is lost, as will occur because that is what is NOW being discovered.

One has to let the Ohio courts do their job, as Swaters, Gardner, Ford, and Lawson agreed to do and to abide by when they set first set foot in that Ohio court. The probability is EXTREMELY high that an Ohio court will look with disfavor on those who engaged in fraud in order to get two of the three Ohio litigants to sign the HOA with a venue selection clause.

Since you are in London, what can you tell me about recent developments in the Carrol Trust investigation? I am wondering how widespread is the culture of corruption as suggested by the below article -- it alleges that Bonhams is facing multiple counts of RACKETEERING and BRIBERY. There are even you tube videos about it, and about how Sotheby's has been named as an expert witness in the matter as against Bonhams. What is the latest? Apparently Lawson and I are not the only ones having problems with Bonhams.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe can you explain which part of this factual statement is misleading ?

 

Yes.

Point One - Of the Ohio Contingent of three people, only two possessed consent to withdraw consignment or ownership authority - Gardner's signing the HOA did not elevate him to a consignor or to an owner; Gardner's signing simply signaled he was onboard as to a settlement that was NOT the type settlement as required in his financing contract with me. It is like a lienholder agreeing to accept less than the full lien amount in connection with a sale. This was well documented in emails circa 2013.

Point Two - The Ohio court did not "give" title action jurisdiction away to London. The parties to the HOA agreed that "any dispute in relation to it will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London," i.e. the dispute must arise out of the HOA. The easy way to grasp this is to ask what term or covenant of the HOA was violated - then take that dispute issue to the London venue. The Ohio appeals court referred to this as a divesting, but only as to that agreed scope. It is possible that the ownership litigation continues in Ohio while Bonhams claims to a commission continue in London. They are separate and distinct disputes; it is not an "either - or" type situation, It is a "both - and."

I addressed your point, and ask that you now address mine.

Since you are from London, what can you tell me about recent developments in the Carrol Trust investigation? I am wondering how widespread is the culture of corruption as suggested by the below article -- it alleges that Bonhams is facing multiple counts of RACKETEERING and BRIBERY. That sounds quite serious to me - MULTIPLE COUNTS of racketeering and bribery. FENCING OF FINE ART STOLEN GOODS . . . There are even you tube videos about it, and about how Sotheby's has been named as an expert witness in the matter as against Bonhams. What is the latest? Apparently Lawson and I are not the only ones having problems with Bonhams.


Joe
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe, I Googled "Carroll Foundation Trust Bonhams" but I can only find the blog site you have quoted from and no further creditable information. I may live in London but I am afraid this story is not on my radar but I do agree that there are questions over Bonhams conduct in your case

On your point one. I thought Gardner was a consigner too as he owned the parts. On your point two. I still cannot understand how case A1001370 can continue in Ohio unless you are successful in your appeal

Otherwise, can you tell me how you realistically see this drama playing out assuming you get litigation resurrected in Ohio ? Bearing in mind the cash and a car are still in London with everyone suing each other in a London Court for damages