+1, and may I add: Don't reward people who renumber a stolen car with a counterfeit VIN, don't reward people who put forth forged docs, don't reward people who sell non-existent cars (multiple times), don't reward people who make secret side deals to breach a contract and then circulate that contract to others for signing, and, reimburse innocent possessors who improve stolen property if made while in their innocent possession. That is how I think it should all be handled - in accord with well established principles of law. My understanding is that Kristi and Ray Lawson were in the audience. The arguments made were merely the continuation of arguments begun months ago and due to repeated failiures to comply with discovery Orders, sanctions were being sought. You should ask that "other site" to post the "Motion to Declare a Liar and a Thief" as it is extremely well written and well documented -- despite the flamboyant title. Bill, you are seriously in error and you mislead the board. The Judge limited his comments to the 6" stack of documents that he had before him, a 6" stack that were produced for the first time with a claim of privilege, despite never being logged in any privilege log. The documents that expose the Swaters-Bonhams secret side agreement to breach the HOA are not before this Judge and not in that 6" stack, so he has no knowledge. Further, Tim Smith or Rick Rinear respectfully reminded the Judge that the purpose of the in-camera review of the 6" stack was as as to privilege, and as Rinear said, relevance was never timely raised thus it is waived/barred now, or as Smith said, you can't review for relevance because you don't know what we know . . . or words to that effect. The Judge kept an open mind about this and is giving Rinear/Smith a chance to cull out from that 6" stack those documents (or list other known documents that have not been produced) that they believe are relevant, so they can have a re-review and get it right. I regard that as a positive development. Correct, and I think the March 2 hearing is specifically limited to the disclosure of the VIN of Morse's car, and a re-review of those documents from the 6" stack, or other known documents that should have been produced that Rinear/Smith believe are relevant - and missing attachments need to be addressed. I heard Rinear say something about a fraudulent invoice being used to import into the UK with emails. I urge this board to focus on the Orders that the Judge issues rather than the back and forth argument that is the "sausage making" leading up to the Order. Joe *
Bill, It makes me wonder if Kristi Lawson is actually paying for all this litigation. A London litigator, on a complex commercial dispute such as this, will not be working on a contingency basis. Ford/Lawson have just filed a complex defence and counterclaim and someone with deep pockets must be picking up the bill.
I do not understand any relevance of the Morse case, but the likely source of the urgency is that Mr. Smith has billed Kristi Lawson a lot of money in pursuit of a photo of the Morse Delahaye and of the VIN, and he needs to bring a scalp back to the sweat lodge to justify the expense. Regarding relevance, the classic American definition is in Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: "Evidence is relevant if: "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and "(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." The Morse Delahaye issue evidently came up in a deposition of Chris Gardner. Evidently Gardner testified that he has a Delahaye in his custody or possession in Switzerland. I don't know if he testified about the ownership of the car, but evidently he testified that the car is in his custody or possession. Evidently Kristi Lawson's attorney Mr. Smith has evidence that this testimony is false. The alleged falsity of Gardner's deposition testimony is the apparent basis for Lawson's (Smith's) motion to have Gardner declared a fraud and a thief. Or maybe Mr. Smith's contention is that Gardner has stolen the Delahaye and he is defrauding the absent non-party Morse. Regarding Lawson's motion to have Gardner declared a fraud and a thief, in the video of the January 20 hearing Judge Martin is telegraphing as overtly as a judge possibly could do that any application by Gardner to strike that silly motion in its entirety will be granted. Whatever scenario matches Mr. Smith's contentions, I don't see any connection between a beef over a Swiss Delahaye and any "facts . . . of consequence in determining the action" of Gardner vs. Ford & Lawson. With respect to Lawson, my understanding of the substance of the Gardner vs. Ford & Lawson case to be a claim on the part of Gardner that he has bought and paid for 100% of Kristi Lawson's interest in #0384, and a denial of that claim on the part of Lawson. Whether Gardner has stolen a Swiss Delahaye or whether he has defrauded Morse has nothing to do with these claims. In fact there is a rule of evidence that evidence of a person's conduct in transactions *not* giving rise to the claim for relief that is before the court, is inadmissible to prove that the person engaged in similar conduct in the transaction which gave rise to the claim for relief that *is* before the court. Again quoting the Federal Rules of Evidence -- specifically Rule 404 -- "Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: . . . Character of Witness. Evidence of the character of a witness as provided in Rules 607, 608, and 609." The referenced Rules 607-609 have to do with the impeachment of a witness. They provide that the use of evidence of prior untruthfulness is admissible solely to attack the truthfulness of a witness's in-court testimony. For example, if Gardner were to testify "I have never lied about a car deal," evidence to the contrary would be admissible.
Joe, were we watching the same video ? One the basis of his review for the documents, the Judge refused all of your attorneys requests but understandably agreed to review any further requests just in case he got it wrong. The Judge did not entertain the liar/thief request nor did he entertain the secret deal conspiracy theory involving someone (Swaters) who is not even involved with the case. Being open minded and openly biased to the family of Karl Kleve, I do agree it is positive you have obtained a request for the VIN before the next hearing and I can now understand why you did not want reporters at a hearing K
This court hearing is a classic case where the person who talks the most loses. These lawyers are making arguments and not answering the question. When I am in court, and it is rare, if the Judge asks a question that can be answered with a yes or a no, I will start with the yes or no. Then I will go into an explanation. But these guys are like school girls on prom night bickering because somebody else danced with their date. A pox on all their houses.
Your jailhouse lawyer skills and your slim experience in actually litigating cases are letting you down. Number one, the right to discovery extends only to relevant documents. If documents are not relevant, the propounding party has no right to their discovery. They fall outside the statutory authorization for their discovery. Number two, a privilege log is a mere tool, created to assist the court in ruling on objections on the ground of privilege -- e.g., attorney/client -- and of the work product protection. A party's right to the benefits of a privilege, or of the attorney work product protection, is not conditioned on the creation of a privilege log, or the listing of a document in a privilege log. Number three, the attorney/client privilege belongs to the client. An attorney cannot through inadvertence or neglect waive his client's privilege. Number four, the work product protection belongs to the attorney. Only the attorney can waive the protection. Inadvertence and neglect on the part of the attorney who holds the attorney work product protection, may give rise to a waiver of the attorney work product protection. But in my experience no court has ever found a waiver by inadvertence or neglect. Finally, Judge Martin's comments speak for themselves. As I already posted, your regular accusations that I am misleading this collective consciousness you call "the board," by writing things which are both literally true and not misleading, but which do not fit your self-interested narratives, are getting tiresome. Judge Martin said what he said, and what he said is that he is not interested in all the information that Smith and Rinear have about Bonhams' alleged pre-auction improprieties. He said, whatever Bonhams did, its only interest was to maximize the price paid for the car at auction. "The board" can review the video, starting at about the 12 minute mark iirc, and reach "its" own conclusions. Regardless of how some unlicensed, self-dealing, inexperienced jailhouse lawyer might wish to limit Judge Martin's comments, these are the thoughts in Judge Martin's head at this moment. I made no other representation about those comments, other than that Bonhams should be gratified to hear what Judge Martin had to say.
the judge has a deficit in his perception with the evidence / testimony as presented to him by the litigants involved... he actually admits to some of his deficits in the video...the difficulty is to understand how the evidence is perceived to conform to the law and how much weight each piece carries to support the various claims... the bench allowed wide room to clarify any misunderstandings before the next meeting in court, the bench also took a very simplistic cut and dry view of Bonhams role, almost being dismissive of their pertinence the outcome of the litigation... Bonhams role is critical to the final outcome of this litigation... the Wexner camp should come forward and play a greater role in how Bonhams is perceived to have arrived where it has.
I agree that the conduct of Bonhams is "critical" to the final outcome of the litigation in the UK court but I cannot see their relevance to the Gardner claims against Ford/Lawson for breach of fiduciary duty, malicious conspiracy and unjust enrichment. Equally, I cannot see what relevance Bonhams has to an appeal against the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. As for Mr Wexner playing a greater role, if I was in his shoes, and wanted to get my hands on a beautiful 375+, I would consider it far more productive to work to resolve the defective Ohio title and see the Ohio ownership claims settled then spent time encouraging yet more protracted litigation between Messrs Gardner and Ford
Bill, There is no need to get personal, and, yet again, you are incorrect. I have never been in jail. I know the definition of the term "jailhouse lawyer" and that description is incorrect - it does not apply to me. I ask that you stay focused on the issues as I do appreciate lively, spirited debate and opposing viewpoints. When focused, they can be used to test arguments and presentations. I stand by my assessments of the twists and turns so far encountered. For example, I remember warning Swaters and her lawyers in writing that their July 23, 2013 Motion to Enforce the HOA was brought in the wrong venue. They ignored my warning, they persisted, and they then persuaded the Judge to issue a incorrect order, which had to be, and was, corrected later on appeal. I predict the other pending appeal in case A1001370 will soon also be won or better yet, vacated and remanded back, due to the fraud recently discovered as to the HOA. I think that the vacate/remand motion was filed today. IMHO, the Gardner appeal of the Judge Martin order recently filed will also lose, if it is not first dismissed out of hand without a hearing, because it is an appeal of a discovery order. The fact that Judge Martin continued on with the January 20, 2015 hearing to "mop up" the pending discovery speaks volumes to one who knows what to listen for -- i.e the Judge thinks that Gardner appeal has no merit either and that the jurisdiction Gardner sought to transfer to the appellate level did not flow. There is one thing you said, and it rings true now more than before: Joe *
My definition of a jailhouse lawyer is a person who throws around a lot of legalistic buzzwords without knowing what they mean and without explaining how they apply to a dispute. This is an accurate description of your contributions to this thread, and also to the litigation process itself. So let's do focus on an issue, one which will be pivotal going forward. That issue is whether the HoA continues to be in effect and controlling. Ford and Lawson contend that it is not, on two grounds. The first ground has to do with the construction of the first sentence of ¶ 3 of the HoA: "Bonhams is appointed the world-wide exclusive agent of BC and of the OC Parties to sell the Car by public auction at no reserve at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013." The issue of construction is, what happens if Swaters, Gardner, Lawson, and/or Ford make it impossible for Bonhams to auction the car at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013? Another way to frame the question is, assuming that it was Bonhams duty -- a fiduciary duty? -- to maximize the proceeds of sale, what happens if events between March 2013 and September 2013 cause Bonhams to reasonably conclude that a delay of the sale for nine months, to the next Goodwood auction, is the only way that Bonhams can discharge its duty to maximize the proceeds of sale? Gardner, Swaters and Bonhams conclude that the correct construction of the first sentence in ¶ 3 is to delay the sale to the next Goodwood auction. Ford and Lawson contend that the correct construction is that the HoA ceases to exist at the conclusion of the Goodwood auction in September 2013, and that the parties are immediately restored to the pre-HoA status quo of March 2013. Unfortunately for the Ford-Lawson contention, Joe Ford has repeatedly, in the post-September 2013, represented to the Ohio courts that the HoA continued to be effective and controlling. It is only when he perceives his interests to be better served by taking the reverse position that he has done so. When a party who is seeking a particular form of relief represents to the court, in support of that relief, that a proposition is true, that party is thereafter bound to that representation. Ford and Lawson's second ground, in support of the contention that the HoA is no longer effective and controlling, has to do with two sets of secret pre-HoA agreements, arising between four of the five parties to the HoA. Ford and Lawson were the parties to one of these two sets of secret pre-HoA agreements. In their secret agreement, Ford and Lawson agreed that their performance of their executory provisions under the HoA (principally, that Lawson would deliver parts and documents to Bonhams) would be conditioned on the degree to which the other parties cooperated with Ford and Lawson in the drafting of a Kumbaya History of #0384. If the other parties' levels of cooperation in the drafting of this Kumbaya History did not meet Ford and Lawson's secret standards of correct cooperation, then Ford and Lawson secretly agreed between each other that they would not perform their executory provisions. Ford and Lawson's secret agreement also included the secret provision that time was of the essence with respect to the timing of Bonhams' auction sale. By an incoherent logic -- one whose incoherence took it outside the realm of any rational person's expectation -- Ford and Lawson secretly concluded that, if no September 2013 sale took place, it would be better for all the parties to the HoA to return to the pre-existing miasma of litigation in the Swaters v Lawson and Ford case, than to postpone the auction for nine months and to spend these nine months working together with Swaters and Gardner to quiet title to the car, thereby to maximize the proceeds of an auction sale in June 2014. Another provision of their secret agreement was that Ford and Lawson would have the unilateral (and secret) ability to extinguish the HoA simply by making it factually impossible for Bonhams to conduct the auction sale in September 2013. As for the other secret agreement, this one was between Swaters and Bonhams. The history of this secret agreement begins in late 2012 and early 2013, when Bonhams became involved with #0384 and put itself forward to auction the car. This led to the drafting, apparently by Bonhams, of the HoA. The HoA bears a date of March 12, 2013. According to the Defense and Counterclaim that Joe Ford filed on January 15, 2015 in the London case of Bonhams v. Lawson et al. (a pdf copy is available on The Other Site), on March 16, 2013, Swaters emailed "Bonhams" as follows: "I think we have already spoke about it in London but it seems to me impossible to be ready for a sale in September this year. "We first have to stop the procedure in the States, which will take some time. Then we will enter into a rehabilitation procedure, we need some press articles to be written, some testimony from the OC saying why they have decided to withdraw, and many other things, which will take quite a long time. All those things have to be done before the announcement of the Sale. "The Goodwood Revival is for sure a good place, but it has to be in 2014.” We on the outside looking in have no evidence that "Bonhams" ever responded to Swaters' March 16 email. But on March 19, 2013, Swaters signed the HoA, with no revision to the term that "Bonhams is appointed the world-wide exclusive agent of BC and of the OC Parties to sell the Car by public auction at no reserve at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013." According to the doctrine of merger, this term supersedes Swaters's March 16 proposals, and renders them a nullity. On March 19 Swaters returned by email to "Bonhams" a copy of the HoA with her signature. Her March 19 transmittal email included the following: "Please find here in attachment, the document 'Heads of Agreement' duly signed. As we agreed with Philip on the phone, just confirm me for form’s sake that the car won’t be presented anywhere before February 2014.” The reference to "Philip" is to "Philip Kantor . . . of Bonhams." It is the law that not every employee of a corporate entity like Bonhams would have the authority to bind Bonhams to Swaters's March 19 request that Bonhams not present the car anywhere before February 2014. Whether Kantor had that authority, we do not know. On March 20, "Bonhams" responded by email as follows: ". . . I confirm the car won’t be presented anywhere before February 2014 -- due to the length of time the Ohio parties have taken to come to terms between themselves and with you a sale in 2013 with proper preparation and advanced marketing simply wouldn't be possible." Joe Ford included in his London Defence and Counterclaim no other documentary evidence of the secret agreement between Swaters and Bonhams. Joe Ford also used the deliberately vague term "Bonhams" to refer to the author of this March 20 email to Swaters. We therefore don't know who was the author of this March 20 email. Much less do we know if that author had the authority to bind Bonhams. In any event, the HoA was signed by all parties in due course. Thereafter, every Ohio Court to whom the parties have submitted the question has ruled that the HoA disposed of all parties' claims in the Swaters v. Lawson and Ford case, and that the HoA continues to be effective and controlling in the post-September 2013 timeframe. In apparent recognition that their only way out from under the HoA is to negate it, Ford and Lawson now assert that Swaters and Bonhams fraudulently induced them to give their assent to the HoA. It is the apparent contention of Lawson and Ford that returning to the litigation miasma in September 2013 would have been preferable to waiting nine months for a June 2014 sale, and in the interim working together with Bonhams, Swaters and Gardner to maximize the proceeds of a June 2014 sale. They apparently contend further that, if they had known that Swaters and Bonhams intended to deny them their return to the litigation miasma in September 2013, and that Swaters and Bonhams intended to require them to accept a greater amount of money than they would have received from a September 2013 auction, they would not have left the litigation miasma in March 2013. Assuming they prevail on the merits, the question then is, what is the remedy? Ford and Lawson contend that rescission of the HoA is the remedy. But rescission is an equitable remedy, and equitable remedies are not available unless an award of money damages (aka the "legal" remedy, or "remedy at law") would be inadequate to relieve their injuries. Equitable remedies also are not available where the claimant has behaved inequitably, aka the claimant has unclean hands. The equitable remedy must also do equity to all the interested parties. This would include Gardner, Copley and Wexner. So there are some of the issues. At a minimum a real lawyer would have case authorities to connect the doctrine of fraud in the inducement to the remedy of rescission. A real lawyer would also have case authorities regarding whether it makes a difference that the contract that the claimants seek to rescind was a Settlement Agreement and Release ("SAR"), held by multiple court rulings to have disposed of a civil action on the merits. Do Ford and Lawson have any such authorities?
Urban Dictionary: Jailhouse Lawyer Jailhouse Lawyer 1. A prison inmate who, despite having no legal education, studies law and argues for the rights of other inmates. 2. A lawyer who throws out any and all arguments, even blatantly wrong ones, for his client. His lawyer said the defendant must have been the victim of a CIA mind-control experiment -- now that was a jailhouse lawyer argument. a youtube example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk8S3q49my [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk8S3q49myA]Ohio Lawsuit - Kristine Lawson + Joseph L. Ford III = FRAUD - YouTube[/ame]
spanking the monkey... is that a new legal term in pictograph format ... or description of those presenting the case
Your definition .... is not in accord with the standard definition, i.e. it is wrong. In this scenario I am a client. Would you agree with me that good lawyers are typically very accurate with their word choices? Bonhams' case is DOA if a fiduciary duty exists - as I think it does. So when Bonhams sets forth an Agreement that expressly specifies the Sept. 2013 auction, and expressly specifies a true and transparent account of ownership history, I am entitled to rely upon those representations, especially when made by my fiduciary. That Sept. 2013 auction date is an achievable date. In fact, it is an express contract provision which, unbeknownst to us at the time, Bonhams and Swaters had secretly agreed to ignore. Then, in furtherance of that secret agreement, Bonhams deliberately circulates an obsolete version of the HOA because Bonhams knew Ford and Lawson would not sign an HOA were it truthfully worded as they secretly agreed. Bill, I bargained for a true and transparent account of ownership history and a reduced (50% of the stolen car) payday in 6 months. I got neither. (FYI - The HOA was a conditionnal settlement, requiring the entry of future agreements with trigger events about what it took to end the claims and counterclaims - a stalemate ensued - the HOA expired.) If "if" were a skiff, we could go boating. We already know Bonhams has secretly made a side agreement to BYPASS the Sept. 2013 date, so your hypothetical is not only still a hypothetical, but Bonhams and Swaters excluded it as a possible outcome. Swaters caused the delay when she refused to sign the April 18, 2013 Haas draft AND then, amazingly, refused to sign her own attorney's May 14, 2013 draft of the Agreed Order. A stalemate ensued and the HOA clock ran out. Instead of seeking relief in the approriate venue, they dallied in the wrong venue despite my written advice. Who, if truly interested in meeting the Sept 2013 date, does such things? Well, maybe they had an ulterior motive . . . well, we now know, THEY DID HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE - to fabricate excuses to somehow cause a delay so they could auction months later as they secretly agreed. Bill, you mislead the board with such misrepresentations. What you say is simply not true. I have never argued the HOA applied as to the time period after the Sept. 2013 auction - I have argued the HOA was in effect as to the time period up to the Sept. 2013 auction, at which point it ended or expired. I have repeatedly referred to that time after the Sept 2013 auction to be a new ballgame. See below for but one of several early pre-expiration warnings that I gave, in writing, to Bonhams, about the HOA applicable time period and the HOA expiration. READ IT, IN FULL. THE HOA had no consignment deadline date nor did it have a rollover to a future auction provision. This email to Bonhams has appeared before at Ferrari Chat p.64, post 1268. You are in a hole. Stop digging. Bill, now you are simply out of your depth. The document's author is well known, defined, and available to the UK court as part of the witness statement in the proceedings (it contains the entire emails with a supporting affidavit by Swaters). The last email happens to be by the Director of Bonhams that has been signing everything else, such as the HOA. A real lawyer would do what my UK lawyers are now doing. Check out their credentials. You are waaay out of your league. It is rather amazing that you think you know enough about this case and enough about the evidence to pontificate to the degree and the detail that you do. Again, earlier, you had it right when you said: Maybe that should be your slogan at the start and at the end of your every post. You are misleading people with misinformation and incomplete information, compounded by sophistry, laced with legalese, that you admit is based upon a 90% deficit of knowledge as to material facts, and a 95% deficit as to applicable controlling law. If we argue anymore, the mods are going to send us to couples counseling . . . . LOL. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Someday you may wake up to the reality that there are people out there who work for a living and who enter into agreements in order to accomplish valuable goals, not to set up their counterparts for claims of default. I have never seen a business person who was actually trying to achieve a valuable goal write such an email as this one, all full of gotchas and inconsequential sideshows and set-ups. Did you or Lawson ever drop your relentless set-up tactics and actually try to achieve a September 2013 sale? Do you actually think a judge or jury who reviews your conduct is going to see you and Lawson as well-meaning, good faith partners in trying to achieve a successful September 2013 sale?
Act in good faith ... yep, we did. Emails about my traveling to Ohio to pack the parts, drafts about press releases and how to present ownership history, timely complaints when someone failed to act as we bargained for, etc., all well in advance of the Sept 2013 auction because WE WERE PERFORMING. By the end of May we were in a stalemate and grew suspicious about Swaters' refusal to sign a Stay-Pay-Dismiss agreed order, and then more suspicious about Bonhams' silence as she did so. Now we know why. If you think my emails are persnickity, you ought to see Bonhams' emails from that time period. Bonhams went overboard. We now have our explanation why. I come from a construction and general contractor background, a licensed Architect, inactive license, plus a law school degree and law license, also inactive. So when a party takes the time to draft and insert a provision in a contract, I treat it as no mere ornament. Its time for that Friday beer and oysters. Joe *
Joe Ford, issues of depth, misrepresentation, and legal talent aside, we still have some questions pending. If you don't want to answer that's OK: I'm also wondering, are you bringing your application to rescind the HoA in Ohio or in London? Obviously the authorities on which you intend to rely, in making the connection between a Swaters-Bonhams secret agreement and the negation of the HoA, depend on the answer.
Bill, there is a new "Motion to vacate order pursuant to CV.R 60B" on the Ohio case posted on the "other site" that may be the answer to your question. In support there are two affidavits that repeat the claims set out in the Bonhams defence and counterclaim. The principal argument being that Florence Swaters wanted a "secret deal" not to benefit the cars value but to buy time to rehabilitate her family reputation and to work against the defendants and to prevent them meeting the September 2013 deadline.
Joe, it is always an amazement to me how you can spin 180 degrees and re-interpret events simply to support a new argument. With two court orders against you and all of the information on the other site, how you can claim you WERE PERFORMING is simply not creditable. As for Swaters not wanting to agree to sign your Stay-Pay-Dismiss amendment this is blindingly obvious to anyone and even more so given the events that have transpired. Who in their right mind is going to buy and pay for anything on the basis they have to wait until the funds have been distributed and agreed between the claimants before they are allowed to get title ? You have kindly explained why a concealed fact can be used as fraudulent misreprensentation in entering into the HOA but you have to come up with a more creditable motivation than Florence Swaters wanting an extra nine months to rehabilitate her family name
According to a former N.A.R.T person present, the entire conversation was recorded , word for word. You even hear the fist on the table sound. The Mpeg tape is in London now, and there is more. Mr. M, it was great seeing you at Cavillino today ! www.ferrarichat.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2016239&stc=1&d=1422182628[/url]http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/images/attach/pdf.gif Image Unavailable, Please Login
You only have to look at the long list of Court applications between the date the HoA was signed (March 2013) to the September 2013 auction to make a mockery of the claim that Ford/Lawson "WERE PERFORMING" and were doing anything other than trying to scupper the auction. What possible "act in good faith" was it to make an application to the Court to exclude the parts from the contract or to file for contempt against Swaters for her moving the car ? What is also entertaining is to read a copy of the 7/16/2013 Ford affidavit on the cars value that has just appeared on the other site. At the time, OJ in his expert opinion, valued the car at $12m to $16m tops. Funny how the Swaters fraudulent rehibilitation time ultimately resulted in a sale for $2m more than OJ had hoped for ! K A1001370 Case History: NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED. NO. C1300604 COPY SENT TO SCOTT JONES, JOSEPH FORD, ZACHARY GOTTESMAN 9/11/2013 NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH FORD RE OHIO PARTS, PLAINTIFF DELAYS INCOMPLETE HEADS OF ECT 9/9/2013 DEFENDANT FORD'S REPLY AND COUNTERMOTION WITH AFFIDAVIT TO JOINT MOTION TO ENFORCE AUG 19 9/6/2013 DEFENDANT FORD'S REPLY TO MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE RE COMPLAINT WITH COURT'S AUG 19 ORDER SHIP PARTS WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 8/29/2013 ORDER 8/28/2013 JOINT MOTION OF SWATERS AND GARDNER TO ENFORCE THE AUGUST 19, 2013 JUDGMENT ENTRY BY ATTACHMENT 8/28/2013 PLAINTIFF FLORENCE SWATERS' AND INTERVENOR CHRISTOPHER GARDNER'S JOINT MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 8/23/2013 NOTICE OF APPEALABLE JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALL PARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW. 8/19/2013 ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE INTERVENING ANSWER OF CHRISTOPHER GARDNER 8/19/2013 JUDGMENT ENTRY AND ORDER AND ENTRY OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 8/7/2013 AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH FORD 8/7/2013 PLAINTIFF FLORENCE SWATERS NOTICE OF FILING CASELAW CITED IN REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE HEADS OF AGREEMENT AND TO DISMISS 8/7/2013 PLAINTIFF FLORENCE SWATERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE HEADS OF AGREEMENT AND TO DISMISS 8/7/2013 ENTRY GRANTING APPROVAL 8/7/2013 MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 8/6/2013 NOTIFICATION FORM FILED. 8/2/2013 DEFENDNAT FORD'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF SWATERS' MOTION TO SEAL AND ENFORCE HEADS OF A AGREEMENT 8/2/2013 DEFENDNAT FORD'S REPLY TO APPLICANT GARDNER'S MOTION TO STRIKE 8/1/2013 NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF WOLFGANG FISHER RE GARNDER MISPRESENTATIONS RE BUGATTI CANTON VAUDAIS, SWITZERLAND 7/31/2013 MOTION TO STRIKE IMPERTINENT 7/31/2013 NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES MORSE IV 7/31/2013 NOTICE OF FILING 7/31/2013 NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD SCOTT RE: GARDNER MISREPRESENTATIONS 7/29/2013 NOTICE OF FILING COMELLI LAWSUIT RE: GARDNER MISREPRESENTATIONS CANTON VAUDAIS, SWITZERLAND 7/29/2013 NOTICE OF FILING 7/23/2013 PLAINTIFF FLORENCE SWATERS' NOTICE OF FILING MOTION TO ENFORCE HEADS OF AGREEMENT AND TO DISMISS UNDER SEAL 7/18/2013 DEFENDNAT LAWSON'S REPLY TO GARDNER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE 7/18/2013 DEFENDNAT LAWSON'S AFFIDAVIT RE: SETTLEMENT, GARDNER MISREPRESENATION, AND LONDON HI-JACKING 7/16/2013 DEFENDANT FORD'S REPLY TO GARDNER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE 7/16/2013 NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT FORD'S AFFIDAVIT RE:COLLECTOR CAR VALUE, ORIGINALITY , DNA, AND PROVENANCE 7/16/2013 NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT FORD'S AFFIDAVIT RE: SETTLEMENT, GARDNER MISREPRESENTATIONS, AND LONDON HI-JACKING 7/15/2013 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 7/15/2013 NOTIFICATION FORM FILED. 7/11/2013 DEFENDNAT'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SWATERS IS NOT IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING STATUS QUO ORDER AND FOR MISLEADING COURT AS TO CHASSIS TESTS 7/11/2013 DEFENDNATS' RULE 56(A) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: OHIO PARTS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM ALLEGED CONTRACT 7/11/2013 DEFENDANT FORD'S NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT 7/11/2013 DEFENDNAT'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF IS NOT IN CONTEMPT FOR MOVING CAR AWAY FOR FERRARI OF ITALY, IN VIOLATION OF STATUS QUO ORDER
Kim, Now I know you are so blinded by your bias that you cannot read. I clearly said that Lawson and Ford WERE PERFORMING and that by May 2013, a stalemate had ensued. DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING "WERE PERFORMING?" OF "STALEMATE?" Swaters' refused to sign the Haas' April 18, 2013 proposal and then Swaters refused to sign her own attorney Jones' May 14, 2013 proposal. Those were agreements that the HOA contemplated would be entered into after the HOA was signed. If Swaters refused to perform the HOA according to its terms, then why should we still perform the HOA? Swaters' refusal to sign means there is no agreed stay nor agreed future dismissal - thus, case A1001370 continues on. Swaters' suspicious choice to "enforce" the HOA in Ohio is at clear odds with the HOA's express provision and is at clear odds with my written warning to Jones (her attorney) that she was in the wrong venue -- thus again a demonstration that she was NOT interested in following the terms of the HOA nor interested in genuine enforcement -- she was just trying to buy time and fabricate a delay. We (Ford and Lawson) were happy to continue litigating A1001370 since Swaters refused to perform the HOA according to its terms, and indeed we did continue litigating case A1001370, as your F Chat Post #2722 so clearly documents. I ask you, please tell the board how Herb Haas (attorney for Ford + Lawson + Gardner) describes the role and position of Gardner at the bottom of his proposed April 18, 2013 order. (Hint: "Financier") Please also tell the board how Swaters' attorney describes the role and position of Gardner at the bottom of Jones' proposed May 16, 2013 Order. (Hint: "Financier") So, I think it is clear what Gardner's role was, and that any later claims otherwise by Swaters or by Bonhams are simply not credible. So, if you have an open mind and a basic understanding of what is going on, you will see that we were performing (March-April-May 2013), a stalemate ensued (late May 2013), we resumed litigation in A1001370 (July onwards), we were then INTERRUPTED by an unlawful order (August 19, 2013 Order), we appealed, and on May 28, 2014 the Appellate Court ordered our A1001370 claims to be reinstated. Unfortunately, we were again interrupted by the June 9, 2013 Order, which is now on appeal. A case is not over until appeals are exhausted. The preceeding paragraph is a true and accurate account - I have told you before, pay attention to the dates and it will all make total sense. Ignore the dates, and you are off into the weeds. As another example of the importance of dates, if you ask me my opinion of value of this Ferrari, it too will vary with dates. Will you agree with me that in the last two years, Ferrari's of this calibre and racing history have enjoyed a terrific rise in values? Joe *
Thanks for the heads up about the posting on The Other Site. Unfortunately this "Motion to Vacate Order Pursuant to Cov.R. 60(b)," to which you apparently intended to refer me, only answers the question of venue: that Ford-Lawson have chosen Ohio, not London, as the site of their attack on the HoA. While the motion's Argument of Law section cites case authorities defining fraud in the inception, the duty of good faith implied in every contract, and the rule that the formation of a contract requires a "meeting of the minds," it exhibits the very thing which I describe in my definition of a jailhouse lawyer. The motion fails to tell the judge how the existence of fraud in the inception, or a breach of the duty of good faith, or the inability to form a contract in the absence of meeting of the minds, supports the relief requested. This is the legal authority I asked you about, and that you have yet to cite. Either you don't understand the meaning or the importance of a linkage between an injury and the correct remedy to relieve that injury, or you and attorneys Smith and Rinear are admitting by silence, evasion and misdirection that you cannot make that linkage. Of course it will not escape anyone's attention that the reason you have framed your attack on the HoA in terms of a "Rule 60(b)" motion to vacate Judge Nadel's August 19, 2013, judgment of dismissal is to do an end run of the choice of law/choice of forum provision in the HoA. However, its an odd choice, to move to vacate a judgment that the Court of Appeal has already reversed and replaced with its own Final Judgment. In other words, I would expect that the status of Judge Nadel's August 19, 2013, judgment of dismissal is that it has already been vacated. But again you and your attorneys have failed to address this issue, much less to cite any case authorities in support of your implied contention that Judge Nadel's August 19, 2013, judgment of dismissal continues to have an effect on your interests, an effect which entitles you to relief from its continued existence. I looked at Rule 60 on Cornell's web site. Here's the link: Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute. If you click on that link you will see that subd. (a) of Rule 60 provides for corrections of typos and other clerical errors. Subd. (b) -- on which Ford and Lawson apparently rely -- provides for a motion for "relief from a final judgment" for any of the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have beendiscovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59 (b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Subd. (c) provides a one year statute of limitations for motions which rely on any of the first three grounds: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. That one year ran out in August 2014. One might argue that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the appeal. But that would require a real lawyer to write the brief, and Ford and Lawson don't seem to have retained one. In any event, the counter argument would be that the one year limitation in subd. (c) is absolute, that it cannot be tolled. This argument is supported by the fact that the first three grounds for a Rule 60 motion include things which by definition the aggrieved party might not discover until after the one year has run out. (This is in fact what happened in the present action.) When the authors of Rule 60 imposed a one year limitation on requests for relief based on, e.g., newly discovered evidence, it is implicit in that limitation that the authors intended that the policy of finality of judgments outweighs the injustice to a party who does not discover relief-supporting evidence until after one year from the judgment in question. But again it would require a real lawyer to have researched and briefed this issue. If the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party are held to be time-barred, then Ford and Lawson run up against the "exclusio" rule (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). As applied to Rule 60, it would make no sense to provide that these grounds are not available to an aggrieved party more than one year after the entry of the objectionable order, and then to let them back in under one of the other grounds that are not subject to the one year limitation, i.e., the judgment is void, the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or any other reason that justifies relief. Again, some competent legal briefing is requred, and again it is absent from the Ford-Lawson motion. A parting shot is this motion's laughable reliance on the fact that Lawson and Ford's refusal to close ranks with Bonhams, Swaters and Gardner, to market and promote the auction sale of #0384 in the best possible light, including in particular with all questions of ownership finally settled, have caused Lawson and Ford to incur attorney fees and other burdens arising from their refusal to cooperate. It is truly a case of a defendant convicted of the murder of his parents, asking for mercy because he is an orphan.
