That Motion is about to be filed. I may post it rather than summarize. Keep an eye on other Ohio court developments, including one of the best written MTD Appeal that I have read (appeal case C1400762), penned by Mr. Smith. It is killer. As to the Feb 3, 2015 oral argument (appeal case C140270), you completely miss the point if you think the appeal is about the HOA. The appeal has to do with the trial court's failure to follow the appellate court's directive to reinstate our claims, and the trial court's mistake in thinking "final judgment" meant to end the case with a "final judgment." We argue it simply meant that the appellate conclusion that the HOA divested the trial court of jurisdiction as to the HOA is a final judgment. FYI, the May 28, 2014 appellate decision did not cede all jurisdiction to London . . . it only sent HOA disputes to London while ownership issues were supposed to be stayed pending distribution of Sept. 2013 full hammer proceeds. IMHO, because Bonhams lacks the time machine necessary to travel back in time to auction and distribute the Sept. 2013 auction proceeds, that stay will now be moot, dissolve, and ownership litigation will resume in Ohio. Bonhams and Swaters had their chance to perform the HOA with its expressly agreed September 2013 auction and they blew it . . . deliberately. The Motion will explain and prove why, and the repercussions will extend into several UK cases. The meaning of the word fiduciary will be a lesson for some. Stay tuned. There will be a shortage of popcorn. J *
Whether Chris Gardner would have waived his claims to X% of the proceeds of sale, that he is asserting in the Gardner v. Ford & Lawson case -- "X" having a maximum value of 50% -- if all parties had cooperated in successfully pulling off a Sept 2013 sale is something we don't presently know. But that contingency has no effect on the value of "X". More bad writing, I know, but what I'm getting at is that the merits of Gardner's claims to a percentage ownership remain the same, whether the sale had happened in September 2013 or June 2014. It is also the case that the collapse of cooperation which started in summer 2013 and which continues today would tend to decrease a person's willingness to accept anything less than the maximum value of "X".
In other news, I noticed today that yet another appeal has been filed, this time arising out of the Gardner v. Ford & Lawson case. What is that about? Also, Lawson seems to have won a discovery motion. Anything interesting in that?
Ahhhh but that same coin has another side which absolutely states that OJ couldnt/ cant accept a cent until he has managed to prove that some or all of the funds should go to OJ. That is only fair. Arbitration will settle everything. And you are saying that Gardner agreed to that financiers contract, well he stood to gain only an amount to compensate him to the value of his financing, to be held in lien over the realised value of #0384AM, in the event that any money is realised. So be it. This is a man with perhaps 30 persona's all existing on this forum, you gotta think he is either mad or a genius.
Are saying that Swaters shipped the car and went to the Ohio Court to obtain an order requiring you to ship the parts as part of a deliberate act to scupper the auction ? I cannot see what they had to gain To me, this all boils down to an appeal over jurisdiction. You can argue all of your points in a London Court without returning to Ohio and even if your appeal is successful it will not extinguish the litigation in London. With hindsight and given the escalating litigation, do you regret your decision to reject the HOA and accept 50% ?
Gardner's Dec. 24, 2014 Notice of Appeal (appeal case C1400762) is of three orders. One Order is dated Sept. 8, 2014 -- that appeal is made 107 days after the entry and thus it is 67 days too late. The other two orders are dated Dec. 10, 2014 and are orders enforcing discovery against Gardner, thus those appeals are of non-final orders, i.e. not subject to appeal. The MTD Appeal by Tim Smith lays it all out in plain english. It is killer. The Dec. 30, 2014 Order just signed also enforces additional discovery against Gardner. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I'm confused and that's OK. But the Notice of Appeal appears to be the opposite -- 180 degrees out -- from an appellate challenge to the September 8, 2014 order to stay all proceedings during the pendency of arbitration. Rather, it says that Gardner is challenging two orders entered *after* September 8. If Mr. Smith didn't see this, I'd say his foot is one of the victims of his killer briefing.
I believe the quote in the first image is from the movie "Hackers", Angelina Jolie and Jonny Lee Miller.
Haven't we already covered the claims about Morse' Delahaye............. Shenanigans anyone? But do tell, where did you get that little tit-bit of information?
Because the promised Delahaye that Mr. Morse has waited and waited for simply does not exist. Gardner was deposed about this and lied under oath about the promised Delahaye. Then, Gardner was ordered to produce a current photograph of the promised Delahaye and its VIN, and he could not. Then, to make matters worse, two days after the Ohio Court's deadline for a photograph expired, instead of admitting to the fraud, Gardner's attorney sent a screenshot of a webpage of the backside of a Delahaye Type 134 sedan parts car, already scavenged of its front clip for parts -- we know this because we located the French shop that did the disassembly. They had more pics. That is what is known as a fraud on the court. It also confirms that stolen money was used to pay some of Gardner's finance contract obligations to me. Those are just some of the "cards." There are more. J *
Are you stating this from memory, or do you have the court documents from 1989? It would be useful for summaries to be shared here if it is the latter. I don't understand why someone who had been found by a court of law to have done nothing wrong, would then hand back $45000 for what they believed was a valid purchase. Was this purely a 'good will' transaction? Would be good to read the court documents to understand the context.
The "tit bit" was from the previous page and OJ's post 2656 of Judge Martins order granting Lawsons motion to compel dated 10/12/2014. I know its summer with you, so stay out of the sun ! OJ has helpfully explained his take on "stolen money" given to him as part of the finance agreement but has not explained the relevance to Lawson and why she not he has applied for the motion. Thanks to your prompt, I searched "Delahaye" on the tread and indeed found the previous references to the transaction, including a pdf (page 52 post 1032) of an affidavit given by a Charlie Morse dated 3rd July 2013 whereby he has entered into an agreement with OJ to redesignate $60,000 of his payment to OJ's son on behalf of Gardner as a loan to OJ against a share of the recovery proceeds. Clearly an unbiased witness and the pantomime gets better and better with the list of claimants longer and longer ! Timmmmmmmmmy, can you not see the irony in OJ, who is using other peoples money, complaining about Gardner using other peoples money to finance this endevour and this all happening in July 2013 three months before Gardner went on the offensive to claim 100%. Who is stuffing who we may well ask ? Kim
Read post#2 by Marcel Massini My understanding is it's not Guy Anderson but the people who picked up 375+ from Kleve's lot who did forgo the money.
I have the FBI documents about what money was RECOVERED which is nowhere near $45,000. I have the COURT ORDERS that order certain amounts to be paid from the FBI to the CLERK, which is less than what was recovered. I have the court CLERK documents that tally what was actually paid in to them, which is LESS than what was ordered. I have the Clerk documents that tally what they ATTEMPTED to pay out to Kleve as a partial compensation, partly for his Court travel and expense, in $200 increments as I recall, and the Clerk complained that Kleve refused and returned them. Anderson (SeeSpotRun) is not being truthful with this board, so this board should demand he back up HIS statements with evidence before you dignify them by repeating them. I suspect Anderson is being paid by Bonhams or someone just to muddy the waters. Demand that he disclose who paid, how paid, when paid. I read the Bonhams defense - they are SCRAMBLING to find justification for the unjustifiable. What happened is that Bonhams tried to hold and then sell someone's property against their consent. When cornered, they ran to non-owners to sign documents in a CYA attempt. It will fail, as will the disinformation campaign that has suddenly emerged. It is just a matter of time. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn. Joe *
Joe, So let's get this straight on the fine upstanding Mr. Anderson's story: 1. Were the 2 people that appropriated 0384 from Ohio were indicted, tried and convicted of theft. Were they tried and convicted or did they plead out? What were they charged? If they plead out is there a record of allocution and did it have points related to Mr. Anderson? 2. Did the 2 testify against Mr. Anderson at his trial? 3. Was Mr. Anderson indicted and tried? 4. What was the charge or charges? 5. Is it correct that he was not convicted, nor was he acquitted just that it ended as a hung jury?
They pled guilty to violating Title 18, US Code, Sect. 2314 - interstate trafficking in stolen property valued in excess of $5,000, and Eric Arthur Neilsen signed off on a statement of facts as he was the one who stole the Ferrari off of Kleve's Harrison Ave Property using a come along and a rented U-Haul box truck. The FBI obtained the U-Haul rental contract and took pictures of the truck. Rented on a Friday and returned the next day. Yes. Tried Nov 6 - 9, 1989 in Federal Court in Atlanta, GA. See below, in Anderson's own words. See also about whether he "bought" the Ferrari. See also another Ferrari dealer opinion of its value, under oath, at the time of the trial, i.e. Nov 1989. The FBI has many witness reports about it being offered in Europe for $800k to $1 Mil. Notice the dates of the FML ads, with the 0384AM VIN. Notice that Interpol was involved - in 1989! Of course, Swaters wants us to believe that AFTER the STOLEN FERRARI allegedly gets a clean bill of health from the Belgium authorities and Kruch has full rights to sell it, Swaters buys it for $100,000. Then, after Kleve refuses to sell to a New York attorney who offers $85,000 to Kleve, the Ferrari Swaters "bought" as 0384AM becomes 0394AM -- a counterfeoit VIN because the factory never made any such a car. IMHO something is rotten - a sophisticated attempt to launder a stolen car. IMHO, THAT was the true history that Bonhams was obligated to publish according to the HOA that I signed - history according to the documents -- let the chips (i.e. truth) fall where they may. Hung jury. US prosecutor decided not to re-try. Anderson was again charged with intimidating a witness and he pled guilty to it, so I think that I part of reason why not retried. Prosecution DID NOT HAVE all the docs we now have. There would have been a finding of guilt IMHO had they had it all. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The facts have still not been made clear. Questions... 1) When did the court case involving the two defendants take place? 2) What was the actual sentence given to the two defendants? 3) I'll plead ignorance on this one - why were the funds to come from the FBI rather than the defendants? 4) Neilsen signed off on a statement of facts, but did this specifically admit the theft, or only to the trafficking in stolen property?
I am obviously incorrect in thinking that case A1306451 was stayed until the Arbitration was determined as there are a number of entries still being added to those you have already highlighted. 12th January, an Appeal C1500018 for Ford IV and Justin Ford on a "question of law" filed by their attorney, Richard Rinear, following numerous attempts to dismiss the complaint and continued unclaimed service. I am guessing that OJ's sons are involved because of the Gardner payments being paid into to their bank accounts. On the eagerly anticipated Swaters v Lawson Appeal C1400361 "merit hearing" schedule for 3rd March there has been an order sent on 12th January and an entry permitting a court reporter to be present at the hearing. Is this a case of someone trying to keep this all secret ?
The case number of the Swaters v Lawson appeal is C140361 (one zero only). According to the First District's web site, oral argument is calendared for 9:00 a.m. on February 3, 2015, before Judges Hendon, Cunningham, DeWine. (Here is the calendar search page: Calendar .) The panel which entered the May 28, 2014 Opinion and Final Judgment consisted of Judges Cunningham, Fischer, and the author Hildebrandt. Only Judge Cunningham is carried over. I can't find an order regarding the presence of a court reporter at the February 3 hearing. Maybe this is a routine measure, that there will be no court reporter to take down the words of counsel and the Court unless the parties ask for one. I can't think of a good reason for a party to oppose the presence of a court reporter at a proceeding held in open court. I can think of a bad one: that the opposing party intends to misrepresent what was said at the hearing, and the existence of a transcript will deprive him of that ability. This makes me doubt that Swaters, Ford, Lawson, or Gardner would oppose the presence of a court reporter. Maybe Joe Ford knows the reason for this order. The problem is, I notice it more and more, that he is selective with respect to which questions he will answer on this board.
Thank you Bill. My information came from the Clerk of Courts website. The entry granting motion to permit the court reporter is listed 7th January on Appeal case C140361 (listed on the Winkler website as C1400361). There is also a letter from the Court added 12th January to the new appeal in the Gardner case A1306451.
Worth the read, with one of the best assemblies of period photos in one place that I have ever seen: 1956 Sebring 12 Hours Grand Prix – Race Profile December 7, 2012 by Louis Galanos Excerpt: "Mr. Gene Bussian, currently of Henderson, Nevada, was a pit steward at Sebring in 1956 and witnessed that last pit stop. According to Mr. Bussian: 'Right before the last drivers change Fangio was sitting there in the pits under a single light bulb looking like a man selling popcorn. He seemed to be very relaxed but you could hear the Ferrari mechanics yelling that they were going to have a pit stop and activity increased as they readied themselves. I was watching Fangio since it was too dark to take photos. I was fascinated by what I saw happening in the Ferrari pits. Fangio casually reached over to get a clean towel and began wiping his racing goggles which he then placed on his helmet. After that he proceeded to put on his driving gloves. Pretty soon you could not only hear but see the #17 Ferrari from where I was standing as the car came down the back straight and into the last turn with brakes glowing red. I then walked over to the pit railing and watched the Ferrari come down pit road. At about 40 feet from the Ferrari pit Castellotti set the car’s brake and began climbing out of the car with one hand on the wheel. It was something to see as the car slid into the spot where it was supposed to. Of course there was plenty of room to do so since many of the other race cars had already retired. Castellotti was already out of the driver’s seat when the car finally stopped and he jumped over the two-by-four railing and went immediately up to Fangio and started talking to him. I found out later he was begging Fangio to let him finish the race. He wanted to be the first Italian driver to win Sebring driving an Italian car. He was hoping that Fangio would let him. Fangio said something to Castellotti which I could not hear. I didn’t speak their language so I probably wouldn’t have understood what they said. After hearing what Fangio had asked him Castellotti did a little jig or dance. I found out later that Fangio was worried about Castellotti’s physical condition and wanted to know if he was tired after doing his turn at the wheel. That little jig was Castellotti’s way of telling Fangio that he had plenty of energy left to finish the race. After Castellotti finished his little dance he stared at Fangio for a response. Fangio didn’t say a word as far as I could tell. All he did was start taking off his driving gloves. That was the answer that Castellotti was looking for and he turned and ran for the car. The Ferrari mechanics had to physically restrain him since the car was not ready and they didn’t want the car to get disqualified if Castellotti prematurely entered the car. When the car was ready he jumped in and drove it away for Ferrari’s first ever Sebring win. It was the greatest thing I have ever seen in all the years I worked as a pit steward at Sebring.' " 0384AM was there as car #2 driven by Troy Ruttman and Howard Hively. Source: 1956 Sebring 12 Hours Grand Prix - Race Photos, History, Profile Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Bill, the "other site" has posted more details including a copy of the motion granted in favour of Swaters and Gardner for a reporter to be present at the 3rd February appeal hearing, at their cost. What is more interesting is a copy of a letter from Judge Martin refusing a Ford/Lawson request for disclosure of correspondence between Gardner and Bonhams. The judge notes that the contents are all about Bonhams wanting to get the "sale done and get the most for the car" and nothing to do with the attorney/financier case.
