375+ # 0384

I wrote this a couple pages back. You never responded. Do you have a response, or will it remain as secret as your December 3, 2013 Opening Brief, your responses (if any) to Judge Martin's December 3, 2013 injunction, and a *substantive* response to my post #2774? You always seem to have a lot of time to discuss events in 1989 or 1999, but none to really dig into the issues that matter.

Quoting this just to save it.

 

Now that I have looked again at Swaters' blockbuster, game-changing emails, what is it that she is actually saying to Bonhams? What she wrote on March 16, 2013 is 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.”

What is the substance of these pre-HoA statements? What I get is that Swaters and Bonhams are discussing the likelihood that the scheming disruptions of a certain double-crossing, self-dealing, financially desperate party to the Swaters v Ford lawsuit were likely to require the good faith parties to the HoA to spend more than the six months that remained between March 2013 and September 2013, to compel him to perform his obligations under the HoA. Further, if it is the case that this unscrupulous character fails to join ranks with the other parties in order to present a car at auction with an undisputed title, in time for the September 2013 auction, it would be best for all concerned that the auction be delayed until such time as the sellers could include a quiet title with the goods on offer.

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."

Where could Swaters and Bonhams have got the idea that another party to the HoA would do everything he could to disrupt an orderly process to a September 2013 auction? What evil motive could have caused them to want to maximize the proceeds of sale for the benefit of all concerned? What a wild coincidence that every fear they harbored in March 2013 turned out to be true! Who could have predicted that it would take a nine-month delay to present a solid package at auction? Swaters and Bonhams must have a time machine.

It must have been a great burden on you, Joe Ford, to have to deal with such people.

 

Not at all, I understand and acknowledge the great things he has achieved in his lifetime. Directly, I feel far too many people make glib comments such as what about the wonderful things he did or he was Mr. Ferrari in Belgium which have no relevance in a thread that is discussing the theft of this car and his role there-in. Indirectly I was simply trying to point out that all of the legal machinations take away from the core issue of any parties criminal offending in relation to this affair and what possible "fixes" there should be. Since we cant try a dead man perhaps the only avenue to look at is financial restitution in some manner. Because one way or another someone in Belgium received stolen property and then another hid that stolen property under the #0394 and and and well lets not waste all day.

That doesn't mean that I am judging Mr. Swaters but it does mean I want justice for old Karl Kleve......

 

Please prove to the board that you have copies of the Swaters emails by posting them. I am calling you out that you do not have them thus you could not have read them.

The burden would be easier, much easier, were people honest. IMHO it is not honest to claim you have read the Swaters/Bonhams emails when I know you do not possess the emails in order to read them -- you have only seen the excerpts relative to a very specific issue, and then you wander way off to make self-serving statements as if fact.

Joe

*

 

As I wrote before, your tenuous grip on reality is getting frightening. As your friend The Board can see, I have only quoted the email excerpts that you and Lawson have included in your Rule 60(b) motion, as posted up on The Other Site. In fact you appear to be attempting to mislead The Board to understand that the remainder of the two Swaters emails and the one "Bonhams" email -- i.e., statements that you have not quoted in your motion -- include even more inculpatory material than the excerpts quoted in your motion. In your felicitous phrase "I am calling you out" either to share these even more damaging Swaters and Bonhams excerpts, or to admit to The Board that your implied representation that such excerpts do not exist.

 

Translation into plain English: you do not have the emails you claim to have read.

Fair enough. (And they do exist!)

Joe

*

 

Dear OJ,

Let’s start with the purging of titles in Ohio.

The great state of Ohio did not purge any Kleve Ferrari title or title documents related to the Ferrari 375 plus #0384 since that document did NOT exist.

Kleve stated in many interviews that he did NOT have title or a bill of sale to the Ferrari Gran Prix racer 1955.

This Ferrari 375 Plus is the same vehicle Karl Kleve did not know the model, color, chassis number or even the correct year. Lets not forget the 4340 mileage without a Speedometer/ odometer.

The Ferrari 375 Plus, or should I say the 55 Gran Prix racer, is the same vehicle that did NOT get listed in NCIC as stolen in 1989 thru to 1997.

Then in 1997, the first ‘Court Ordered’ title was issued allowing for the first ever theft report # GT89-239 to be issued for #0384 thru a bounty hunter.

This was not achieved by an owner’s certificate of title but by using a ‘Court Ordered Title’ after the applications for an ownership certificate of title were exhausted and denied.

Daniels sold the Court Ordered title to Lanksweert in 1999 (not Swaters), the Police report (Ohio) was lifted thru Mark Daniels (1999) and never to be reissued against #0384.

Even after you (Ocean Joe) tried to relist #0384 as stolen and were DENIED by the same Police department that issued the 1st stolen report for #0384 in 1997 then PERMANTLY released that same stolen report against #0384 in 1999.

So now your fall back is on the ‘FORGED BILL OF SALE’ from 1958 that is erroneous in every way possible. First let’s start with the ‘Fact’ that the Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 was sold to Howard Hively in 1955. That sale was well known and recorded in publications and yet you claim otherwise.

I have witnessed so many errors pertaining to this 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 endeavor that I fail to see how anyone reading this “Fantasy Post” can make sense out of what actually happened in relation to #0384. The information that I have read is nothing less than a convoluted mess.

So why do you attempt to justify your misunderstanding of the events from 1988? It is apparent that you are NOT informed and you were NOT an active participant in what happened pertaining to the history and alleged theft of the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384.

In 1998 Kleve told us during a meeting in Ohio that Daniels was going to bring back the now fully restored 375 Plus from Europe. Daniels had a POA, a Court Ordered title and a 1997 police issued stolen car report for #0384. The investigator Mr. Mandel asked Kleve what up front money he gave to Daniels for the recovery of #0384 and Kleve would not divulge how much was paid. Mr. Mandel also asked how a recovery would be possible since the VIN number was changed to #0394.

Let’s look at some of the facts:

1) You can not produce a police report for a stolen Ferrari 375 Plus with the information required by law enforcement for such a report. That would be a VIN number, Title, date of offense, and let’s not forget an accurate description.

.2 You can not produce a title prior to 1997 that shows Kleve as an owner of any Ferrari.

Note: That’s true because no one can produce that Ohio title document since that title never existed. That was even stated by Karl Kleve.

3 You do NOT know and have never met any of the participants involved with this vehicle.

Note: That is probably a real good thing since the defendants were looking at 10 years jail time on each charge x 2 =20 years (Each)……. initiated by an escaped mental patient (Karl Kleve). Not to mention the 100,000 +++ cost to prove the vehicle was abandoned, the vehicle was NOT sold as a stolen vehicle, and the purchase was made in good faith.
Oh by the way, the money that was spent pertaining to this litigation was more than twice the cost paid for the Ferrari carcass.

4) Your only posts are what you want the readers to see and not the damaging evidence.

Question: Why don’t you post the Kleve affidavit that was used to secure the 1997 Court Ordered title? Why do you withhold that information from everyone including the concerned readers of F-chat? Was that an oversight or is this done by design.

Now let’s address the Atlanta Court proceedings.

The charge by the Federal Government was Interstate transport of a (alleged) stolen vehicle that crossed state lines. None of the 4 defendants crossed state lines to purchase the remains of the Ferrari. The Ferrari was bought as a good faith purchase in Georgia and no where else. After the purchase, my company shipped the Hulk to Belgium for restoration purposes only and NOT for sale. The FBI had all of that information at their disposal but we were not in court for that reason. We were in court about Interstate Transportation of a (alleged) stolen vehicle and WE WON.

Note: Why don’t you post where I explained to the jury that the hulk was worth nothing and why? You can then interpret it for the readers and then I will correct your interpretation.

The second charge several months later was ‘Conspiracy’. Why don’t you look that up in a law dictionary?

Note: You would need to know someone, or a group of someone’s, before you would be able to conspire with that someone, or that group of someone’s.

We were tried on that charge along with the Interstate transport and WE WON on that also.

Now you ask why I am posting.

You pulled me into the conversation with attacks, a forged Bill of Sale, overinflated values, the history you don’t know or understand, and your misinformation pertaining to this wonderful Ferrari work of art. It is your lack of understanding of the events of #0384 including your spin on what happened pertaining to #0384…… that is why I am posting. It is your erroneous interpretation of the Historical events as they pertain to the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384.

Let’s see if we can get another issue straight. In 2005 Kristy Kleve pulled the few scabbed Ferrari parts found from the auction when I was there. Oh by the way, I called Kruse Auctions in Indiana the day before I was going to drive to Ohio and they stated nothing was pulled from the sale, namely the Ferrari parts I specifically asked about.

So lets fast forward to 2007, Kristy Kleve Lawson was trying to offer those same scabbed parts to any interested parties including Jacques Swaters thru a Mr. David Clark. So tell us why Jacques Swaters was compelled to sue Kristy Kleve Lawson in relation to these ‘negotiations.’ Why don’t you inform your readers about the spark that lit that fire storm?

Then tell us why Kleve’s agent, (Mr. Mark Daniels) who we know signed and sold the Court Ordered title over to Lanksweert was allowed to do this. If you now imply that something was foul in that transaction. Why did Kleve in 1999 NOT take action against his representative (Mark Daniels) for selling the Court Ordered title?

Could it be that Kleve authorized Daniels to act on his behalf by signing the necessary documents to do so??

Could it be that once Kleve issued a Power of Attorney to Daniels then he (Daniels) had the ability to sell, transfer, or assign the Court Ordered title and then sign and cash any and all checks associated with that transaction on Kleve’s behalf?

It is apparent that you do not understand the circumstances or the events pertaining to the
history of the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. I understand that you may have believed the FORGED bill of sale and may have based some statements on that erroneous information.

I have stated before in this forum that it’s not about you and it is not about me. This forum is about a car known as the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. I have seen your interpretation of documents that you have posted and since I was an active participant I can and will interpret the documents correctly.

Let me say this; I have nothing against you, your cause, or what ever you are trying to accomplish in this forum. I am just going to clarify the events as they pertain to The 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus # 0384 for you, and for the avid readers of F-chat.

Oh, by the way that FBI document is an interoffice document and not a listing to interpol.

 

while arguing about titles... one must realize that car titles are a relatively new thing, with respect to a time line with this car... titles did not exist during the initial years of ownership... there is no law compelling that all previously owned cars fall under the new title requirement apply for title, allowing for transfers and ownership without title... Kleve had proof of ownership of the car, which is all he needed.

 

In fact I have been writing in English, with no need for translation into the Ford-Lawson World's secret subjunctive mood. What I have written most recently is that the messages I get from your bombshell, game-changing emails between Swaters and "Bonhams," is Swaters stating that, as of March 2013, there was too little time to rein you and Lawson into a united front behind a quiet title to #0384, and then to do adequate marketing of the resulting package, both steps being necessary to maximize the proceeds of sale. I also wrote that she was right! That's a fact: that Swaters's predictions in March 2013 were right, that you and Lawson did make it impossible to present a united front and to present the best possible package for auction in September 2013.

It was also clear -- in English -- that the source of my information regarding the contents of the bombshell, game-changing Swaters and "Bonhams" emails, was the excerpts that your attorneys have quoted in your Rule 60(b) motion, as posted up on The Other Site.

You replied that I have misconstrued the emails, and that I have failed to quote other statements in the emails, statements which contradict the messages that I am getting from the excerpts from your 60(b) motion. This is highly unlikely, that your legal advocates would include, in their selective quotations from the Swaters and "Bonhams" emails, statements which show that Swaters's only motive in delaying an auction sale until after September 2013, was to maximize the proceeds, to the benefit of all parties, including you and Lawson, but that they would leave out statements that show other, more sinister and improper motives. But this is what you are representing to your friend The Board. So again I am "calling you out." Share these other, more incriminating Swaters emails. Or admit that it is you who is attempting to mislead.

Actually you can probably leave out that last part, since there seems to be no one on The Board who does not already see this.

 

impression from the peanut gallery... Bill is parsing his legal explanations ( not wrong or incorrect ) from a preconceived notion of what is and what isn't... then adjusting the "pieces" until they sort of fit, while missing the ether that this case is immersed in

 

I have to say that I tend to take more note of posts by those that have the courtesy to at least give some indication of who they are, and where they are located, in their profile.

On that basis I disregard everything that you write

 

posting even a meager CV could be misconstrued as being an authority or having knowledge, which I do not wish to imply, as any opinion could be offered with defect. All opinions gleaned should be confirmed. One should not be blinded by one's station when reading responses as to their veracity.

 

soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/Submit
noun
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
a fallacious argument

That is what 180Out is doing. I asked him to admit that he did not have the emails that he claims to have read. He dodges the question, repeatedly.

180Out will not answer that question directly (likely an ego issue) and instead shifts attention to his wild extrapolations about events and about the motivation of others. Unfortunately for him I am extremely familiar with post HOA signing events. The events went by the book until Swaters refused to sign her own attorney Jone's May 14, 2013 version of an agreed order that was first proposed by our attorney Haas on April 18, 2013. Note, OUR ATTORNEY Haas took the initiative -- we were performing! I have emails where I was chasing Haas to get Swaters reply! It was Swaters who refused to move to step two. Thus the stalemate and the clock ran down. Those are the facts, and no sidelined, semi-informed, ego-engaged attorney can overcome that.

Lawson and I agreed to interrupt the Ohio litigation (which we were winning) in exchange for a reduced payday (50% of hammer price) in six months (the Sept 2013 aution). If it would take longer than that, I will continue litigating in Ohio for the whole enchilada - a payday of 100%.

We now know Swaters never agreed to what we agreed to, so there was never a meeting of the minds. My view is that there is a reason Swaters and Bonhams kept their secret agreement secret from its inception - they knew there would be no deal were they truthful with us. Thus, they deliberately opted to commit a fraud and sent us a version of the HOA that they had no intention of performing.

And another thing, the car did not need six months or a year of advance marketing - its history was well known and that is where its value derives - all a potential buyer needed was to know was that ownership litigation would be resolved if he bought. ( I even tried for an earlier August Pebble Beach venue). Ownership resolution was agreed to be handled by an agreement, and could also be handled simultaneous with the closing "on distribution". The months of marketing were more for Bonhams' benefit than for the car -- heck, this car sat on the floor of the Ferrari museum for years -- that speaks volumes. The broker I contacted after the HOA expired had the relevant collectors on the car in a matter of a few weeks - the car is the star, not the owner or the prior possessor's reputation. Many if not most all of the BIG Ferrari deals are done this way - private treaty sales with brokers.

180Out had it right when he said:

I think that about sums it up. 180Out's view and knowledge is very limited, and IMHO rather than answer a question forthrightly, his ego, not his intellect, has taken over.

Regardless, I think it would be more productive and constructive to shift the focus/analysis onto this Tuesday's oral argument on the Motion to Remand and the appeals (June 9, 2014 Order and the contempt Order for non-compliance with the August 19, 2013 Order). If the Motion to Remand is granted, we should see some fast progress on our fraud in the inducement and fraud on the court allegations.

Joe

*

 

Then why do you bother posting? You've pretty much admitted your views have no worth.

 

why do you continue to read my posts and respond, when you clearly stated you have me on ignore... there have been no admissions from here, opinions expressed are yours, which you are entitled to, there are as many opinions as there are backsides, which you follow is your choice

 

You replied within a few minutes of Joe posting. As you always support him I really wonder if you are not just Joe in disguise ? ;-) Does seem a coincidence!

 

I didn't say I have you on ignore - I just said I would ignore your posts - Joe!

Just yet another of your distortions of the facts.

 

looks like you're rummaging where it don't shine and still following my posts, can't you find the delete button,

 

Ha

I think you doth protest too much. Notice you didn't repudiate my thesis!

 

Cheese, I am certainly not disputing that Kleve did not own the car but the original title that has been transferred down to Lawson/Ford is an issue. The problem with the current title is that Mr Wexner claims that its very existence would lead to his imprisonment if he were to attempt to register his new car in Ohio and in his writ claims that the block on the current title prevents his own registration. Conversely, Bonham claims that Wexner was aware the title on hold was "false" and that "as one of the worlds biggest Ferrari collectors" he should not have been seeking a London auctioneers advise on a Ohio BMV.

I am clueless on Ohio BMV's but I am curious on the Karl Kleve title that was surrendered by Kleves agent Daniels as part of the 1999 Settlement. It states that the title was issued based upon "Court Evidence" and yet looking on the Ohio BMV website it appears that an affidavit is not required for a duplicate title. I am also very surprised that titles in the USA are a "new thing" and that you are unable to apply to the BMV for a copy of a classic cars vehicle history (or the supporting affidavit) like you can here with the DVLA.

Call me suspicious but I am equally surprised by OJ's explanation (below) on why Kleve had to get a court order to get a simple copy and his claim that he has never seen the affidavit made by Kleve. I am left wondering if Mr Wexner, or anyone else, has ever bothered to check with the Ohio BMV if this statement is correct ?

K

 

The equivalent numbers for Joe Ford are that he knows 120% of the facts (he knows 80% of the truth and makes up another 40%) and less than 5% of the law. Really he has shown himself not to know any law at all, just some buzz words that he bandies about with no real understanding of how they go together or how a judge or a real lawyer would apply them to a dispute.

 

title laws are about ownership and recording liens, while vehicle registration is about vehicle identity for road use and taxes / revenue. Vehicle title laws came into being in the 60's when the uniform VIN was adopted. There is no mandate to title vehicles prior to title implementation, nor is there a mandate currently to title ALL vehicles. Vehicles used off road are exempted ( track use / collector etc ) and are treated as other personal property and can be traded with a bill of sale

Duplicate titles is a misnomer and DO NOT EXIST. Only ONE VAILD title can exist. A more proper name is REPLACEMENT title, as each title is replaced the prior title is cancelled / voided. One title per VIN. This creates a lineage / paper trail / history of ownership that is traceable.

This is where Bonhams et al cannot transfer ownership. The solution is simple, Bonhams simply presents their documents to Ohio BMV for a replacement title. The rub is that Bonhams et al know they have defects in their ownership and a court ordered block in advancing a replacement title until all claims to ownership are settled. The Wexner camp knows they cannot accept Bonhams documentation because of known defects which could make them receiving stolen property, allowing for cause to vacate the sale. It also sets up Bonhams as a seller of stolen property if they go back to the Ohio courts ( a problem for them ).

 

Cheesey, I was more interested in your view (and anyone else's) on the likelihood of 0384 title history and affidavit being lost from a purge of the Ohio BMV files.

Furthermore, do you think it is likely Karl Kleve went to the trouble of registering title of the carcass of 0384 before the car was stolen as OJ claims or do you believe it is more likely that the title was not in existence and he only registered it as part of his attempt to recover his vehicle ?

The Court transcript description of Karl Kleve reminds me of my father. A man that never threw away any paperwork such as the original bill of sale and yet we are told he had lost both the title document and a copy of the affidavit he used to obtain his "duplicate". If it is as simple as you claim, to obtain a replacement title, then I cannot see why the new owner, Mr Wexner has not done so and is making such an issue about it.

Changing the subject, and given that you are also being tarred with the unfair "bias" brush, do you believe the claim that Florence Swaters was working against OJ's diligent efforts to make the September 2013 auction for the sole purpose of "rehabilitating" the family name ?