375+ # 0384

Nice attempt at misdirection. We are not trying to "analyze lawyer arguments as if it is the same as sworn witness testimony." We are inquiring into whether Ford and Lawson are bound to a set of legal conclusions, as set forth in their legal briefs, e.g., "Judge Nadel heard and decided the issues involving the title to the Ferrari. He ordered the title documents to be transmitted to Bonhams in London, England, along with powers of attorney by Ford and Lawson. He placed the onus on Bonhams to take whatever steps are necessary to transfer clean title to the purchaser of this vehicle. . . . Under the current order by Judge Nadel, the title to the Ferrari is secure, and upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title."

And let's not forget this one: "The very same title issues that Plaintiff addresse in his Motion to Reform Title were before Judge Nadel in the Underlying Action. Judge Nadel issued an Order addressing the disposition of the title issues, which has not been appealed. Therefore it is final and binding."

In this inquiry, witness testimony in fact is not even admissible, on the ground that it would constitute a legal conclusion. By contrast, a party admission set forth in that party's legal briefing is binding on the party, even if the legal position that the party has taken in its brief is objectively incorrect.

Here's a little Ohio law on this subject, that took me about three minutes to find:

"The Ohio Supreme Court has defined a judicial admission as “a distinct statement of fact which is material and competent and which is contained in a pleading.” Faxon Hills Constr. Co. v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners (1958), 168 Ohio St. 8, 10, 5 O.O.2d 260, 151 N.E.2d 12, citing Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper (1884), 41 Ohio St. 100. “Admissions of facts made by attorneys during the progress of a trial are usually held to be binding on their clients, and admissions of counsel in motions or other papers filed by them in a cause are competent evidence against their clients in the same cause, providing they were made by counsel acting within the scope of their authority.” State v. Pipkins (Feb. 9, 1996), 2d Dist. No. CA 15060, 1996 WL 50158, citing **514 43 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1983), Evidence and Witnesses, Sections 301 and 320; Abrazonine Co. v. Eng. Co. (1910), 17 Ohio C.C. (N.S.) 209; Bosworth v. Terminal RR. Assn. (1899), 174 U.S. 182, 189, 19 S.Ct. 625, 43 L.Ed. 941; see, also, Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper, 41 Ohio St. at 105–106."

Beneficial Ohio, Inc. v. Primero, L.L.C., 2006-Ohio-1566, ¶ 12, 166 Ohio App. 3d 462, 467, 851 N.E.2d 510, 513-14.

Here's another:

"{¶ 7} Judicial admissions are formal statements, made by a party or a party's counsel in a judicial proceeding, that act as a substitute for legal evidence at trial. So if a party unequivocally concedes a fact, that concession constitutes a judicial admission for the purposes of trial. [29A American Jurisprudence 2d (2008), Evidence, Section 770.] Judicial admissions can occur at any point in the litigation process, including the pleading stage. [29A American Jurisprudence 2d (2008), Evidence, Section 771.] Pleadings containing admissions against interest are admissible as evidence against the pleader, as long as the admissions involve material and competent facts. [43 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (2008), Evidence and Witnesses, Section, 289.]

"{¶ 8} The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld the notion of judicial admissions through pleadings: “[A] party who has alleged and has the burden of proving a material fact need not offer any evidence to prove that fact if it is judicially admitted by the pleadings of the adverse party.” [Gerrick v. Gorsuch (1961), 172 Ohio St. 417, 178 N.E.2d 140.] Intermediate appellate courts have acknowledged this principle. As the Ninth Appellate District has explained, “It is the general rule that a statement of fact by a party in his pleading is an admission that the fact exists as stated, and, as such, is admissible against him in favor of his adversary.” [Teagle v. Lint (Apr. 1, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 18425.] Therefore, as long as the statement of fact in the complaint is distinct and unequivocal, it can be accepted as a judicial admission in that case. [Id.; see, also, Dombelek v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 154 Ohio App.3d 338, 2003-Ohio-5151, 797 N.E.2d 144, at ¶ 22.]

"{¶ 9} In Reed v. Toledo Edison Co. [(July 10,1992), 6th Dist. No. L-91-259], the Sixth Appellate District noted that parties are bound by their admissions: “Parties are bound by their written admissions made in the progress of a cause as a substitute for proof of any material fact, and cannot repudiate them at pleasure.” [Id., quoting Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper (1884), 41 Ohio St. 100, 105-106.] . . . .

"{¶ 11} Similarly, the Ninth Appellate District in Dennis v. Ford Motor Co. held that an admission in Ford's answer constituted a judicial admission binding in that case. [(1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 318, 323, 699 N.E.2d 993.] . . . ."

Haney v. Law, 2008-Ohio-1843, ¶¶ 7-11.

 

Thanks Bill,

You prove my point. You cite nothing to support your point about lawyer argument constituting an admission, plus you cite cases where clear and unequivocal ADMISSIONS made in a pleading may be used as a substitute for a client's admission. Neither are present here. I can tell you do not actively litigate because only a rookie makes such mistakes, if they are mistakes and not a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Speaking of a deliberate attempt to mislead, why do you cite a cases about an answer to a lawsuit, or admission made in pleadings as being a judicial admissions - no one is talking about a lawsuit answer or an admission in a pleading - thus what you cite is irrelevant. Is this ANOTHER rookie mistake of yours? It speaks volumes to me when someone makes such a lame assertion.

Further, you omit the context - i.e. my lawyer was recounting events surrounding Nadel's Order. You omit to say that my lawyer clearly states, after talking about events leading up to the Nadel Order, that the Nadel Order is on appeal by Ford, thus OBVIOUSLY Ford does not agree with Nadel's reasoning and actions, and rightly so. Not only did I NOT agree with Judge Nadel's actions and Order, but on May 28, 2014 the appellate court REVERSED the Nadel Order declaring it as an unlawful entry made without jurisdiction to do so. Those are HUGE oversights by you. H-U-G-E.

You are gonna have to do better if you want to be taken seriously.

Joe

*

 

I'll quote this nonsense, in case you try to clean it up later.

 

Here are jpegs of the brief that I quoted in my "quiz show" post above. I believe you personally posted these jpegs. They comprise the Ford-Lawson Opposition to Gardner's motion for an order to issue a reformed title. Ford and Lawson filed this brief in the period after the September 2013 Goodwood event came and went with no auction sale of #0384, and before Bonhams went forward to sell the car at auction in June 2014. If your good friend "The Board" is sufficiently interested in what was the Lawson-Ford posture with respect to whether the HoA continued to be effective and controlling in that post-September 2013, pre-June 2014 timeframe, "it" can read the brief and draw "its" own conclusions.
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
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

 

While "The Board" is reviewing your party admissions from the post-September 2013 timeframe, I wonder if you might review my quotation above from Beneficial Ohio, Inc. v. Primero, L.L.C., 2006-Ohio-1566, ¶ 12, 166 Ohio App. 3d 462, 467, 851 N.E.2d 510, 513-14, and give "The Board" a non-rookie explanation of how the rule with respect to party admissions is limited solely to admissions set forth in a pleading:

"'Admissions of facts made by attorneys during the progress of a trial are usually held to be binding on their clients, and admissions of counsel in motions or other papers filed by them in a cause are competent evidence against their clients in the same cause, providing they were made by counsel acting within the scope of their authority.' State v. Pipkins (Feb. 9, 1996), 2d Dist. No. CA 15060, 1996 WL 50158, citing **514 43 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1983), Evidence and Witnesses, Sections 301 and 320; Abrazonine Co. v. Eng. Co. (1910), 17 Ohio C.C. (N.S.) 209; Bosworth v. Terminal RR. Assn. (1899), 174 U.S. 182, 189, 19 S.Ct. 625, 43 L.Ed. 941; see, also, Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper, 41 Ohio St. at 105–106."

 

I think you are confused. Exactly what statement of fact from what pleading are you trying to argue is an admission?

I read the document you posted. It simply recites procedural events as the basis for the new Judge not to disturb the prior Judge's actions -- it does NOT admit that ALL the prior Judge's actions were correct, nor does it say I have withdrawn my appeal of the prior Judge's acts. It simply goes to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, Judge Nadel was addressing Ohio title issues, and thus they were within his scope and could not be disturbed by the later Judge.

Of course, since the title Judge Nadel ordered to be sent listed Ford and Lawson as owners, I agree that it is correct, and agree that it had no provision or line to list a contingent lienholder such as Gardner when that title was applied for.

So, to eliminate confusion, exactly what statement of fact from what pleading are you trying to argue is an admission?

Joe

*

 

At the moment, they would include the following. I expect I could find more -- and there *are* more, in your attorneys' representations to Judge Martin at the December 2013 hearing on Gardner's motion -- but it's not my job.

"The very same title issues that Plaintiff addresse in his Motion to Reform Title were before Judge Nadel in the Underlying Action. Judge Nadel issued an Order addressing the disposition of the title issues, which has not been appealed. Therefore it is final and binding."

"In addition, Judge Nadel ordered that ' ... any action, suit or proceeding brought by any party to this action to construe, to interpret or to enforce the Heads of Agreement, or any provision of it, must be brought and prosecuted in the High Court of Justice In London, England.'"

"There is no question but that Judge Nadel had knowledge of the title issues regarding the Ferrari, and dealt with them in the Underlying Action. A review of the docket and journal entries in the Underlying Action establishes this beyond question."

"Here, Judge Nadel heard and decided the issues involving the title to the Ferrari. He ordered the title documents to be transmitted to Bonhams in London, England, along with powers of attorney by Ford and Lawson. He placed the onus on Bonhams to take whatever steps are necessary to transfer clean title to the purchaser of this vehicle."

"Under the current order by Judge Nadel, the title to the Ferrari is secure, and upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title."

These are quotes from the brief in the jpegs above.

It seems that the smaller that corner you're in, surrounded by all the fresh paint you've laid down, the more unmoored from reason and reality you become. It's starting to get a little frightening.

 

I'm not sure if I will miss the contributions of Ocean Joe here after all of this has truly blown up in his face?

It will be nice to see the car finally find itself a good home again. I was at Cavallino this past weekend and it sure would have looked wonderful there on the upper section of the lawn with all the other 375's that were present.

>8^)
ER

 

+1

 

Bill, you mixed up. What Order do you think that statement refers to? HINT: It is NOT the Aug. 19, 2013 Order.

My attorney is merely stating as fact what Nadel ordered on Aug. 19, 2013. It is NOT stating that I or he agrees with what Nadel did, or that Nadel had authority to do it. If you want to know MY VIEWS about that Order, go read my appeal.

Again, Bill, my attorney is merely stating as fact what Nadel did and ordered on Aug. 19, 2013. It is NOT stating that I or he agrees with what Nadel did, or that Nadel had authority to do it. If you want to know MY VIEWS as to that Order, or the court actions leading up to that Order, go read my appeal, and read my reply to the motion to enforce.

Again, Bill, my attorney is merely stating the impact as a result of what Nadel did and ordered on Aug. 19, 2013. It is not the same as saying we agree with that or that what Nadel did was what we sought. The statement merely recites what Nadel did -- it is observable fact. At the time, my appeal of that Order is already several months old and my views as to that Order are well documented therein. And as we all NOW know, on May 28, 2014 that Aug. 19, 2013 Order was reversed on appeal as it was unlawfullly entered by a court without jurisdiction (as I argued all along, and on appeal).

I hope you now see your ROOKIE mistakes and why you are incorrect.

Maybe you should ask yourself the question "Why didn't the other attorneys use those alleged "admissions" against Ford if they are admissions as Bill claims?" The reason is obvious - the other attorneys KNOW what they are reading. That should AGAIN tell you something.

Joe

*

 

You and Lawson made these party admissions in your Opposition as grounds for Judge Martin to deny Gardner's motion. Your attorneys repeated these party admissions, and stood silently while Judge Martin agreed with them, at the hearing on the motion. You and Lawson were rewarded with Judge Martin's refusal to grant Gardner's motion. You and Lawson are therefore bound to these admissions.

You show yourself to be unable to grasp the simplest legal concepts. Typing in all-caps and using triple exclamation marks are not generally recognized as compelling points of law. The people of Louisiana will never know what a great favor you did them when you allowed your bar admission to go inactive. It seems to have been a sad fate for everyone who has followed your legal advice since then. This includes Chris Gardner, Kristi and Ray Lawson, and "The Board."

 

Bill You mislead the Board and are you incorrect.

Here is an example:

If my attorney says "Judge Nadel said Bill is incorrect when Bill said 1+1=4" or "Judge Nadel entered an Order saying Bill is incorrect as to 1+1=4", it only means my attorney is repeating what Nadel said, and it is not a clear and unequivocal admission by Ford based on Ford's personal knowldge that Bill is incorrect.

If my attorney says "Mr. Ford believes Bill is incorrect because anyone who knows math knows that 1+1=2" then it can be argued that it is an admission as to my belief that Bill is incorrect. (The Judge may still want to take evidence from an expert in math to confirm if Ford is correct, but I doubt it.)

I think you incorrectly gloss over what was being said - it is clear that the attorney's words referred to what Judge Nadel ordered and what he did, and it showed that Ferrari title issues belonged in Nadel's court (not Martin's court) since title issues had already been part of that case A1001370. The new Judge agreed.

Let's just leave it at that because, in plain English, that is what it is.

Joe

*

 

For me the thread and the challenge has always been a simple one, 0384AM was stolen and it should be returned to the last legal owner, everything else is slightly or totally fraudulent. To say that someone can purchase a stolen item legally is surely a sign that the jurisdiction allowing that has a flawed legal system. Anyone that has read all of the posts from the beginning to the sale in June '14 must believe or at least be aware that Swaters and Lanksweert knew what they had and knew that it was stolen. All of the legal argument around the Bonhams sale and other avenues of litigation is valid but gets well away from the central core issue of a car gets stolen and there has been no actual valid compensation or return.

Does anyone truly think that anyone involved in the theft of #0384 in the late 1980's acted honorably and/ or shouldn't be penalized in anyway?

 

They are all kinds of legal issues being argued/addressed....

Regardless of that and what all can be offered on insights/opinions/inputs on the legal proceedings, I find it amazing that a car was purposely "renumbered" to make it into something that was known not to exist.

I find it even more interesting who ALL was involved with this.

The fact that a car was harbored under this scenario is pretty disturbing. The historical aspects make it even more so.

 

Where can I find copies of the Opening Brief and Reply Brief you filed in the appeal? Please post up some pdf or jpeg copies. I would like to see how you represent to the Court that the HoA ceased to be effective and controlling after September 2013, with one exception: the HoA's choice of law/choice of forum provision. Help a ROOKIE learn!!!

 

"A theory" George, that doesn't cut it, he raced it, showed it and told the media present that he had #0394, but all the paperwork including the invoice (which he had) and the Ferrari SPA report (which he had) stated that it was #0384AM. Finally in 1999 he admitted in an affidavit that he had #0384. Now what was actually stamped on the car, who knows but it never stopped being the mortal remains of #0384AM which he and Lanksweert paid $75k for. So how does anyone explain away any of that in a positive light.

 

in the same way they and everyone else doing the same, have been doing for years... pay an advocate enough and they will make chicken soup from a pile of chicken stuff... they keep throwing stuff at a wall until eventually some of it starts sticking... ooops you did say "positive light"...

 

This is a re-post of the unanswered questions from post #2760.

Is anyone able to shed any light on any of this at all...??

 

You accused me of only raising the HOA expiration as an issue long after the HOA had expired. In fact, I raised the issue well prior to expiration when Swaters inexplicably resisted doing what she had agreed to do, while Bonhams stood silently by and the HOA clock was running down.

Start with the 2013.07.29 Ford to Bonhams email (posted earlier at Ferrari Chat p. 64, post #1268). I made it crystal clear (again) to Bonhams what my position was as to HOA scope (September 2013 auction) and as to HOA expiration. Please READ it, all of it. Note the date. Note how Bonhams would not communicate an answer as to whether the September 2013 auction date could still be met. I was willing to get Bonhams to switch to an earlier Bonhams USA auction at Pebble Beach!

Then, in my 2013.08.02 reply to Swaters' 2013.07.23 Motion to Enforce the HOA, I raised the issue that the Motion to Enforce the HOA was in the wrong venue. (Posted earlier at Ferrari Chat p.123, post #2442). Note how I gave them a chance to ALL submit to Ohio jurisdiction --- Bonhams refused, and still refuses. Had they submitted to Ohio jurisdiction, then we would proceed to the Main Issues about the HOA in Ohio. Again, Bonhams would not submit to Ohio jurisdiction. The rest is history -- an unlawful Aug. 19, 2013 Order was mistakenly entered by the trial court, timely appealed, and thus the May 28, 2014 appellate decision.

Of course, all of the above was before we learned about the Swaters-Bonhams secret side agreement, which now explains why Swaters stonewalled in April - May - June of 2013 and explains why Bonhams stood silently by while she stonewalled . . . she wanted to miss the Sept. 2013 date because she had a secret side agreement with Bonhams to wait well into 2014.

Joe

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

 

The trial was Nov 6-9, 1989 in Federal Court in Atlanta. The two had entered guilty pleas and then testified against the three defendants -- Gary Anderson, Guy Anderson, and Gary Kelley.

The sentence for EAN was five years probation a $17,500 fine (which the court then waived) and give up of the $12,500 cash the FBI seized.

The sentence for RBK was four years probation, no fine due to hardship, a $9,000 restitution to Kleve by the end of probation, and give up of the $11,000 cash the FBI seized.

References by the sentencing Judge as to the value of the stolen property were as high as $1,000,000 but they did not hold the young men accountable for knowing (or paying) that value since it was the province of experts.

There are government documents showing Kleve refused government checks and that they came in monthly for the amount of $200.

The admitted facts included the circumstances and removal of Kleve's property, and the plea was to trafficking in stolen property valued in excess of $5,000. The court noted that it was very lenient due to their cooperation.

Joe

*

 

Again I say it, that you are incapable of grasping the simplest legal concepts. The disputed issue is, does the HoA continue to be effective and controlling after the September 2013 Goodwood event came and went with no auction sale of #0384? With respect to that issue, what you wrote prior to September 2013 does not trump what you wrote and did subsequent to September 2013.

For example, in your December 2013 Opposition to Gardner's motion to reform the 70/30 title, and again at the hearing on that motion, you represented to Judge Martin that the HoA continued to be effective and controlling. You also represented that, when Bonhams sold the car -- an event which was still prospective as of December 2013 -- the "onus" would be on "Bonhams to take whatever steps are necessary to transfer clean title to the purchaser of this vehicle," and that these steps would make "title to the Ferrari . . . secure, and upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title." On the strength of your representations that the HoA continued to control all issues with respect to the 70/30 title, and in particular that Bonhams had sole authority to decide these issues, Judge Martin did not grant Gardner's motion.

I suspect that we will find similar admissions in your Opening Brief in your appeal of Judge Nadel's August 2013 order: a brief which you would have filed in the post-September 2013 timeframe. You have not posted it up, so we can't say for sure. However, it is suspicious that you have not.

 

Bill,

The HOA applies to actions and events as to the HOA up to the missed auction date. If you sue for breach, no matter when, it is under the HOA. The HOA does not apply nor regulate what a party does after the HOA expires, such as at a subsequent auction, as I clearly state in the 2013.07.31 email posted above. You cannot ignore my "no rollover to future auction" words. There it is, in black and white, a simple legal concept which you (not me) seem incapable of grasping.

That attorney representation is as to the time period being discussed, i.e pre Sept 2013 -- that has been clarified numerous times yet you continue to misrepresent as if it referred to the time frame when my attorney made the statement. IT DID NOT, SO GET OVER IT. Same applies to other representations, all part of the discussion about that HOA applicable pre Sept 2013 period.

That is correct, and it is because all title issues, whether right or wrong, old or new, belonged in case A1001370, not A1306451.

The brief is 27pp long. Below is an excerpt that puts your "suspicion" to rest. Note the first paragraph of page 7, which is the last paragraph of the "Statement of Facts " section.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I expect that we have put your friend The Board into such a state of confusion, and impatience with this ongoing exchange about your disabling party admissions in the post-September 2013 timeframe, that no one is reading these posts any longer. But I am not confused, and I will give it another go.

What is going on here is that you ask us to understand each of your party admissions to be a conditional proposition. The conditional that you ask us to insert into each party admission is, "If it were not the case that the HoA ceased to be effective in September 2013, then it would be the case that 'X' ('X' being a disabling party admission) would continue to be true." You also want us to add the conclusion, "But it is the case that the HoA ceased to be effective in September 2013. Therefore, it is the case that 'X' does not continue to be true."

There are many problems with the implied amendments that you ask us to add to your post-September 2013 admissions. The primary one is that you never make it express, that this is how the reader or the listener is supposed to construe your statements. Communication is the transmission of a message from the writer/speaker to the reader/listener. In the absence of an express disclosure, that your declaratory statements are intended to be in the subjunctive mood, to be an "if/then" conditional, the message that is communicated is that they are declaratory statements: that they are intended to describe the facts on the ground as of the post-September 2013 date of the statement, not as they may have existed in a pre-September 2013 timeframe.

Another problem is that the subjunctive world you pretend to inhabit does not fit the known facts. Assume two alternative realities. In Ford-Lawson World the HoA ceased to be effective in September 2013. In Bonhams-Swaters-Gardner World, the HoA continues to be effective. In BSG World the term in paragraph 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" -- is not construed as a deal killer, a drop-dead terminating condition. Rather, the residents of BSG World add the implied term, that if Ford, Lawson, Swaters, and/or Gardner make it factually impossible for #0384 to be included in Bonhams' September 2013 Goodwood auction, or if Bonhams determines that it would breach its fiduciary duties under the HoA, if Bonhams were to do a hurry-up sale at the September 2013 auction, then a term would be added, "or at a later Goodwood auction, if a postponement would tend to increase the proceeds."

In other words, in response to the facts as they played out in the summer of 2013, the residents of BSG World construe the first sentence in paragraph 3 to read, "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, or at a later Goodwood auction, if a postponement would tend to increase the proceeds."

On November 19, 2013, Gardner -- a resident of BSG World -- files a motion in the Gardner v. Ford case, asking Judge Martin to reform the 70/30 title. What Gardner requested was an order to issue a new title listing Gardner as the owner in place of Ford, "because Defendant Ford purchased his interest in the Ferrari using Gardner's money while acting as a fiduciary of Gardner. As such Ford's claimed ownership interest should flow to Gardner." In support of his motion Gardner cited Ford's testimony from a two or three day deposition that Ford gave beginning on November 12, 2013. Gardner did not ask that the relief requested should be "nunc pro tunc." That is, Gardner did not ask Judge Martin to post-date the effective date of the title to any date other than the date on which the clerk of the court actually issued the new title, i.e., a post-September 2013 date.

In short, the temporal location, if you will,of the filing of the motion, the evidence cited in support of the motion, the hearing on the motion, and the relief requested, were in a post-September 2013 timeframe. Their conceptual location was in BSG World, where the residents understood that the HoA continued to be effective and controlling.

On December 2, Ford and Lawson filed their Opposition to Gardner's motion. In support of their request that Judge Martin not order the issuance of a new title which replaces Ford's name with Gardner's, Ford and Lawson make numerous disabling party admissions to the Court, including the following:

"Here, Judge Nadel heard and decided the issues involving the title to the Ferrari. He ordered the title documents to be transmitted to Bonhams in London, England, along with powers of attorney by Ford and Lawson. He placed the onus on Bonhams to take whatever steps are necessary to transfer clean title to the purchaser of this vehicle."

"Under the current order by Judge Nadel, the title to the Ferrari is secure, and upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title."

"Judge Nadel issued an Order addressing the disposition of the title issues, which has not been appealed. Therefore it is final and binding."

OK, so now that we understand that these statements originated in Ford-Lawson World, we know that the messages that Ford and Lawson intended their statements to communicate to Judge Martin require the addition of the various implied terms indicated in italics:

"Here, Judge Nadel heard and decided the issues involving the title to the Ferrari. Pursuant to the terms of the HoA, he ordered the title documents to be transmitted to Bonhams in London, England, along with powers of attorney by Ford and Lawson. Pursuant to the terms of the HoA, he placed the onus on Bonhams to take whatever steps are necessary to transfer clean title to the purchaser of this vehicle. If the HoA continued to be in effect after September 2013, then these orders would preclude an order to grant Gardner's motion. Because the HoA is no longer in effect, and because these orders depend entirely on the continued effectiveness of the HoA, these orders are also no longer in effect. However, this Court must consider itself bound to these non-existent orders, and on that basis it must deny the issuance of the new title that Gardner now seeks, with an effective date of December 2013."
The second above-quoted admission would read as follows, again with italics showing the necessary amendments:

"Under the current order by Judge Nadel, the title to the Ferrari is secure, and upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title. Because the HoA is no longer in effect, and because the Judge Nadel order, which would have provided a secure, clean and transferable title upon sale, depends entirely on the continued efficacy of the HoA, it is no longer the case that title to the Ferrari is secure, or that upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title. However, this Court must consider itself bound to the proposition that title to the Ferrari is secure, and that upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title. The new title that Gardner now seeks would imperil the non-existent stability of the title that Judge Nadel's non-existent order would have provided to a buyer at a Bonhams auction sale which will never happen. On that basis, this Court must therefore deny the issuance of the new title that Gardner now seeks."

As to your third disabling admission -- that "Judge Nadel issued an Order addressing the disposition of the title issues, which has not been appealed. Therefore it is final and binding" -- I am sorry but I don't see how the message in this admission could vary between Ford-Lawson World and BSG World, even if we add all the verbal gymnastics the Ford-Lawson version would require.

In any event, even if you put your silly Ford-Lawson World spin on all your disabling party admissions, you end up in an absurdity where you are opposing a request for prospective relief base on grounds which, in your "if, then" conditional voice, do not exist.

But wait, there's more.

On December 3, Judge Martin issued a preliminary injunction, ordering that "Joseph Ford is enjoined and prohibited from interfering in anyway [sic] with Christopher Gardner's business and/or legal affairs, including but not limited to, the sale of the Ferrari 375 Plus, No. 0384AM." This sure sounds like Judge Martin is a resident of BSG World, not Ford-Lawson World. One would expect Ford's response to this injunction to include some real clear statements, that in this post-September 2013 timeframe Gardner's "business and/or legal affairs" most decidedly do not include any "sale of the Ferrari 375 Plus, No. 0384AM." Much less -- one would expect Joe Ford to say -- is there any such thing as a "sale of the Ferrari 375 Plus, No. 0384AM" in which Joe Ford is not a participant, in which Joe Ford has no right to "interfere" pursuant to his rights as they stood in May 2013, prior to the execution of the HoA.

Please share with The Board any evidence that you ever made any such statements in response to this December 3, 2013 injunction.

On December 3, you file an Opening Brief, that you continue to refuse to share in full with your friend The Board. This confirms my suspicion that it also includes additional disabling party admissions, affirming that the HoA continued to be effective and controlling in a post-September 2013 timeframe. One thing we know for sure, is that the Opening Brief that you refuse to share represented to the Court of Appeal that the HoA continued to be controlling with respect to its forum selection provision. We know this because, in its Final Judgment issued May 28, 2014, the Court of Appeal wrote as follows (emphasis added):

"In this case, the parties do not dispute the validity of the forum-selection clause. The clause unambiguously requires any dispute arising under the Heads of Agreement to be resolved in the High Court of Justice in London. Thus, the trial court erred in enforcing the terms of the Heads of Agreement, because the forum-selection clause divested it of any authority to implement the agreement. And because the trial court’s dismissal of all claims was based on the erroneous premise that the court had the authority to enforce the agreement, the granting of the motion to dismiss was also improper."

In your December 2013 Opening Brief, how did you square the proposition, that the HoA's forum selection clause continued to be effective and controlling in that post-September 2013 timeframe, while every other part of the HoA had ceased to exist? That would be a neat trick. Unless you again depended on the invisible terms that Ford-Lawson World asks the residents of the real world to imply into every Ford-Lawson representation.

Let's see, how would that work? According to the Court of Appeal's Final Judgment, "In three related assignments of error, Lawson and Ford argue

* that the trial court erred in dismissing their claims prior to the distribution of the proceeds of sale;
* that the court erred in holding that the Heads of Agreement was enforceable; and
* that the court erred in failing to find Florence Swaters in breach of the agreement."

In their challenge to these three orders, the message that Ford and Lawson intended to communicate to the Court of Appeal must have gone something like this:

"The HoA provides and mandates that 'any dispute in relation to [the HoA] will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London.' Although the HoA ceased to exist in September 2013, on August 19, 2013 it did exist, and it was effective and controlling. On August 19, 2013, Judge Nadel entered the orders that we ask this Court to reverse; i.e., the order to dismiss our claims, the order that the HoA was enforceable, and the order denying a ruling that Swaters was in breach of the HoA. These orders are reversible because the HoA divests the Ohio courts of jurisdiction. So, even though the HoA no longer exists, and even though the Bonhams Goodwood auction that was the sole purpose of the HoA will never happen, we ask this Court to reverse Judge Nadel's three orders, and to require the parties to submit all future disputes in relation to the HoA to the High Court of Justice in London."

Finally, your appeal from Judge Nadel's Entry of the Court of Appeal's Final Judgment likewise depends on this same pretzel logic as your appeal from his August 2013 orders.

Is this a correct description of the view from Ford-Lawson World? Help a ROOKIE learn!!!

 

The appeal court correctly stated, based on the record before them at that point in time, i.e all proceedings prior to and including the Aug. 8, 2013 hearing and the resultant Aug. 19, 2013 Order. So, based on what was THEN the record on appeal, the appeal court correctly stated that no one disputed the validity of the HOA clause.

Now, with new information that we now know was deliberately concealed by Swaters from us (and the trial court) since BEFORE WE SIGNED THE HOA, indeed we NOW do dispute the validity of the HOA. The appellate court has stated that disputing the validity of the HOA venue selection clause is a legitimate issue to raise in an Ohio trial court, thus the Motion to Remand so that the Motion to Vacate can be considered. Because we raise the fraud in the inducement and fraud on the court issues against Swaters, I do think the appeal court will remand the matter back to the trail court while also reinstating the claims that they ordered reinstated.

Again, the flaw with your attempts at legal analysis is that you do not pay attention to the time frames involved as to the documents or the testimony that you cite. IMHO you mislead the Board when you cite documents or quote words out of their context.

Joe

*