375+ # 0384

The Ohio title signed by Mark Daniels (that Swaters possessed and that Swaters gave to Bonhams in 2013 in connection with the HOA auction) was OFFICIALLY CANCELLED by the Ohio BMV on April 20, 2001. It was replaced by a DUPLICATE TITLE issued that same date to owner Karl Kleve. A detailed report of the unbroken, official chain of Ohio titles over the years is listed on the Ohio BMV printout as posted at Ferrari Chat p. 119 post #2378, and again below. Note how DUPLICATE titles replace lost titles.

Attempts to nit pick the issuance of a title (such as by complaining about the mileage, or complaining about it being a racecar never intended for driving on a street) will not defeat the underlying claim of ownership that a title is meant to track. To defeat an ownership claim to an item, one must be able to prove how he, with normal due diligence, acquired ownership from the previous owner, not merely a previous possessor. On September 2, 1999, Swaters business partner (Phillipe Lancksweert) admitted that Kleve owned 0384AM and that it had been removed from his possession in 1989 (Ferrari Chat p.138 post #2745).

I attach below the Ohio BMV printout, the latest curent title (now on adminsitrative hold), the Lancksweert admission, and the Jacques Swaters authorization of Lancskweert. Swaters later ratified all the September 2, 1999 documents in 2010 as an exhibit in his February 12, 2010 complaint in case A1001370.

What I am saying is that Swaters has already admitted that Kleve owned 0384AM up until September 2, 1999 at which point Swaters THOUGHT he became the owner as a result of the September 2, 1999 settlement document. Note the Ohio title record (after purge) shows the first Ohio title to be issued in March 24, 1994, so Swaters via Lancksweert is admitting the Ohio titles issued up to September 2, 1999 are valid, and Lancksweert/Swaters THOUGHT that the Ohio title they obtained from Mark Daniels on September 2, 1999 was validly obtained and represented a transfer of ownership. Well, we now know the Mark Daniels title simply and only represented a fraud on Swaters by a rogue agent.

Kleve knew then (in 1999-2000) what we now know for certain as a result of Swater's forensic document expert - the 1999 Settlement documents were altered after Kleve signed with numbers that were fictitious. There is even a casette recording of Kleve talking to the FBI about that in 2000! It is on you tube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZWc_WYh5x0

Joe

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

 

There was no reason for Kleve to title the car during his ownership, since title laws do not apply and were at his option, leading to the notion that any prior title did NOT exist. I believe his motivation to title was to confirm his ownership with respect to what was going on and to establish a traceable lineage. A motor vehicle affidavit typically is an physical inspection by a law enforcement to the BMV that a vehicle exists as presented. ( it could be as simple as an affirmation of ownership in title application ) ( need to see actual document to ID it )

A title must "connect ALL the dots" without any gaps in lineage. ( basic title research / personal property ) We have been told there is a court ordered hold in Ohio on replacing a title, as well as other potential defects which affect current ownership. All gaps must be filled, failing that, ownership can be challenged. It is up to the seller to provide proper documents that will result in a legal transfer. At this point Bonhams et al cannot deliver a clear and true ownership with the sale... the lineage is broken, ownership is claimed from two jurisdictions, which is impossible and is counter to clearing prior ownerships. The process is simple for Bonhams, but they cannot conform to the requirements (Ohio) for re issue. If documents were true and correct, Wexner could present what was given to him at the sale allowing for immediate replacement title.

I don't care what Swatters did or didn't do... I think there is an expiration to the HOA without an intent to rollover / extend. I don't think it matters if anyone is culpable or that "who" matters. The contract expired. The sale was NOT a unanimous decision ( under protest by demanding withdrawal ) by ALL the owners, yet to be determined as to who is considered as owner. Bonhams had a vested interest to perform and recover resources asap causing them to NOT act in the best interest of the sellers.

 

Bill, the appellee brief is up on the other site and reaffirms many of your previous comments.

the principal reasons being put forward for denial are

1. The forum selection clause contained in the HoA and upheld by the "final judgement" Appeal remains in London and not Ohio

2. The Civ. R. 60 (B) motion is both fatally flawed, time barred, does not show good cause and is precluded by the forum selection. Relief is already being litigated in London and is being defended by the Appellants, as such any change could result in a conflict between both Courts. A final judgement has been entered by the Court which can only consider a motion for relief by an order from the Court of Appeals.

3. The Appellant deliberately delayed filing their motion in an effort to stop the oral arguments of tomorrow (3rd February). The "game changing evidence" was disclosed in early September but not acted on until late January and is also being pursued in London. The application has been made as a delaying tactic to "improve their legal standing in settlement negotiations" by maintaining the "illusion of viable litigation pending in Ohio" while at the same time as contining to litigate the same issues in London.

I have no idea how this will go tomorrow but as Judge Martin concluded in the his 20th January hearing "I would say Ford's in over his head; he's making a play that he doesn't really know how to make; this is a big -- his big score; as opposed to just taking a piece, Ford's trying to parlay this whole thing into the big score he's dreamed of his entire life". However, I can be certain that if he loses, OJ will find yet another way to keep the plates spinning in Ohio using someone else's money. What OJ's game plan is and why his backers (attorneys/Lawson/Wexner/witnesses/whoever??) continue to fund his ever expanding litigation remains a complete mystery.

 

Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind

 

OK, let's be productive and constructive.

What is the Ford-Lawson game plan if the Court of Appeals declines to order a remand to the trial court, an order that the trial court evidently needs in order to hear your Rule 60(b) motion to challenge the HoA?

Productive and constructive question no. 2: What is the Ford-Lawson game plan if the Court of Appeals does remand to the trial court, and the trial court denies the Rule 60(b) motion?

No. 3: What is the plan if the Court of Appeals denies the appeal of the Judge Nadel's Entry of the Court of Appeals' Final Judgment?

 

I Was Referring to the Pros/Cons of Tomorrows Arguments - Not My Future Tactics!!! LOL.

I do not think it wise for me to spell out my "what if's" and my "gameplan" . . . I was only thinking of debating the pros/cons of tomorrow's oral arguments.

Joe

*

 

OK. I take it that "tomorrow's arguments" are before the First District Court of Appeals, and that on calendar are oral arguments in support of your appeal from Judge Nadel's June 2014 Entry of the Final Judgment of the Court of Appeals. From what you just wrote today, I take it that tomorrow's calendar also includes the Motion to Remand, to permit the trial court to hear your Rule 60(b) challenge to the HoA.

Regarding the Motion to Remand, I wrote a longish post on Sunday January 25 on this motion, which was never responded to. Here is an excerpt. Can you respond to the mootness issue, and to the one year limitation on Rule 60(b) motions based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct?

Regarding the appeal itself, I have asked this before and have got no answer: What is the meaning of the Court of Appeals' description of its May 28, 2013 opinion, as a "Final Judgment"? Gardner's attorney wrote the following on that subject, in his Opposition to the motion to remand that is posted up on The Other Site. Any comments?

 

It's nearly 5:00 p.m. CST. I take it the hearing before the First District Court of Appeals has concluded. How did it go?

Did the Court rule on the Motion to Remand the case to the trial court, to enable Ford and Lawson to litigate the game-changing bombshell attack on the HoA?

Did the Court rule on the appeal from Judge Nadel's June 9, 2014 Entry of the Court of Appeals' May 28 Final Judgment? It seems like this is such a simple issue that the Court might have issued an oral ruling today.

Did the Court agree with the Gardner-Swaters Opposition to the appeals of the contempt rulings, i.e., they are moot? Again this seems like a simple issue.

 

We may have to wait for the video but my guess is that OJ is in hiding and working on his new sure fire game changing argument.

I hope that there will be something left for Karl Kleves estate when all this is done

 

I am busy reading the tea leaves.

No ruling yesterday.

Appellate court initially intended to deny the Motion to Remand than gave Ford/Lawson until this Friday to file a Reply to Opposition to Remand and indicated they may rule on that as early as next Monday.

Appellate court seemed to summarize that the Contempt Order was dissolved by operation of law once the unlawful August 19, 2013 order was reversed -- a trial court can only use contempt to coerce compliance with a LAWFUL order. The appeal court indicated they will issue something to that effect.

Appellate court seemed to get that the HOA must be read in its ENTIRETY to decide jurisdiction - i.e. the HOA had venue preservation clauses that applied to the Ohio ownership litigation remaining in Ohio while the HOA also had a venue selection clause applied to the HOA disputes being in London.

Appellate court seemed to realize that the fact finding as to the Motion to Remand and the fraud in the inducement and fraud on the court needs to occur in lower court. The discussion was quite good.

Again, the above is based on my read of the tea leaves, as explained to me, as I was not present.

Joe

*

 

Joe, correct me if my simplistic understanding of what you are saying is wrong but subject to a final ruling next week, the hearing concluded.

Final judgement did indeed mean Final Judgement and the Ohio case is closed. No remand or fraud discussions (as interesting as they may be) to the trial court and it will not be litigated in Ohio again

Your motion 60R was denied

The HOA validity/disputes need to be proved in London first before you can file another ownership suit in Ohio

Bill was right, the contempt rulings are indeed moot.

My question is where does this leave Wexner in his claim against Bonhams ?

 

re Wexner: my guess is that Wexner will need to petition for Ohio courts to accept the London determination / documentation before accepting delivery of car... failing that, Wexner's ownership is open to challenge and potential of receiving stolen property... in deferring to London courts, leaves an open gap in lineage if Ohio refuses to recognize determinations... it would be unusual for a purchaser to accept the task to clear documentation to consummate a sale

 

Kim

My tea leaves said only the Motion to Remand may get ruled upon next week, and it is dependent on how well the Reply to the Reply is written.

The Decision as to the matters on Appeal is weeks away.

Once the appeal comes down, jurisdiction returns to the trial court anyway - the remand was just a short-cut to it.

I did not get the impression the appeal court thought ownership litigation moved from Ohio to London, at best, only HOA related litigation is for London, and that can be shot down in Ohio as to Lawson/Ford AND in London due to fraud on the court and fraud in the inducement. (Same facts, different claims.)

My London reports are --- I will keep it a secret.

Copley/Wexner's Buyer Rescission Claim is fine and will prevail --it is likely the first of the London cases to be resolved, which then also resolves the Stakeholder Action. All that remains after that is the Bonhams HOA breach action.

Joe

*

 

This is certainly an uninformed understanding of how a court conducts its business, that its decisions are based on the quality of the parties' written briefs.

In this final clause you have stumbled onto the truth. Ford and Lawson have made (at least) two requests to the Court of Appeals. One request is an order to reverse the trial court's June 2014 entry of the final judgment of the Court of Appeals, as set forth in the Court of Appeals' May 2014 opinion in Ford and Lawson's first appeal. The other is an order to return the mandate in the case to the trial court, to make it possible for Ford and Lawson to litigate the effects of their game-changing blockbuster evidence (i.e., that Swaters and Bonhams agreed in March 2013 that the sale of the car should be postponed until after September 2013 if postponement would increase the proceeds of sale). If the Court of Appeals acts on the first request it will necessarily moot the second request. This is so because, whether the answer to the first request is to reverse or to affirm the trial court's entry of the Court of Appeals' May 2014 final judgment, the mandate will return to the trial court.

Unless the Ford-Lawson Reply Brief, in support of their motion to remand, includes a convincing argument that they will suffer some form of irreversible harm unless the Court of Appeals rules solely on the request to remand -- i.e., that it reserve its ruling on the merits of the appeal from the entry of judgment -- the writing of the Reply Brief would not be good.

This paragraph is confusing. Paragraph 12 of the HoA provides that "This Agreement shall be governed by English law and any dispute in relation to it will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London." Under this formulation, the test of London jurisdiction turns on whether a request for relief is a "dispute in relation to" the HoA. The sole purpose of the HoA was to liquidate the parties' litigation claims to ownership of the car, the parts, and the documents; i.e., to convert their claims of ownership into cash. Therefore I fail to see how the HoA did not move "ownership litigation" to London; that the HoA intended to leave jurisdiction over "ownership litigation" in Ohio. In other words, how is a dispute over ownership -- "ownership litigation" -- not a "dispute in relation to" an agreement whose sole purpose was to liquidate litigation claims of ownership?

The Court of Appeals, in its May 2014 opinion, has established that the term "dispute in relation to the HoA" includes at least three types of disputes, when it granted judgment as to Ford and Lawson's three "assignments of error":

"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;
. . . holding that the Heads of Agreement was enforceable; and
. . . failing to find Florence Swaters in breach of the agreement."

The Court of Appeals agreed, as follows:

"{¶13} 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.

{¶14} Therefore, to the extent that Lawson and Ford contend that the trial court erred in enforcing the Heads of Agreement and in dismissing the claims, we sustain the assignments of error."

Please explain how these terms support the distinction you are now making, that the Ohio courts retain jurisdiction over "ownership litigation," and that London has jurisdiction over claims of "fraud on the court and fraud in the inducement."

 

You misstate my premise.

The HOA speaks to retention of Ohio jurisdiction over the existing ownership dispute litigation (para. 1 and 2) while as to NEW HOA disputes that may arise, I refer you to HOA para. 12. Yesterday, the appellate court picked up on this distinction as they realized that they had to read the HOA in its entirety to see how the parties intended it to operate as to Ohio litigation and as to HOA litigation.

Fraud in the inducement and fraud on the court can be brought both as defenses in Ohio and in London because each have been affected by the same core facts.

I anticipate that soon Bonhams will throw someone under the bus as regards our claim that Bonhams and a someone made a fraudulent secret agreement to breach the HOA.

I think I just heard a ker-plump.

I just re-ordered more popcorn.

Joe

*

 

I am not stating your premise. I am asking you, what is your premise? What is the distinction between "ownership litigation" (as to which the Ohio courts retain jurisdiction) and "HOA related litigation" (which "is for London")? Maybe if you could just give an example of each type of "litigation," I might get it.

The term "new disputes" does not appear in para. 12 of the HoA. Para. 12 states in full, "This Agreement shall be governed by English law and any dispute in relation to it will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London." In its May 2014 Final Judgment, the Court of Appeals said of para. 12, that "The clause unambiguously requires any dispute arising under the Heads of Agreement to be resolved in the High Court of Justice in London."

Here are para. 1 and 2 of the HoA:

"1. The parties have entered these Heads of Agreement to set out the terms on which (a) BC and OC Parties have agreed to extinguish all claims and counterclaims between them in relation to a Ferrari 375 Plus motor car, Chassis No 0384AM, Engine No. 0384AM and engine 0394 AM, with ALL the parts, documents etc. (“the Car&#8221 and (b) Bonhams has agreed to sell the Car by public auction. OC warrants and represents to BC and to Bonham’s that THEY have full authority to enter and perform these Heads of Agreement on behalf of all parties other than FS, and to stay all litigation in Ohio relating to the Car.

"2. All clams [sic] and counterclaims between BC and OC whether already asserted or not, are hereby waived and permanently extinguished on distribution of the funds from the sale to the signers of this agreement. BC and the OC parties will promptly enter an agreement discontinuing all action in Ohio in such form as is appropriate under Ohio law."

The first sentence of para. 1 says the purpose of the HoA is to state the terms of a deal whereby Swaters, Lawson, Ford and Gardner "have agreed to extinguish all claims and counterclaims between them in relation to" the car, the parts, and the documents. The only construction to which this sentence is amenable is that the purpose of the HoA is to extinguish the parties' Ohio-venued ownership litigation claims. This sentence furnishes no support for the contention that the Ohio courts nonetheless retain jurisdiction over the parties' Ohio-venued ownership litigation claims.

The second sentence then makes the meaningless statement that Lawson, Ford, and Gardner have "full authority to enter and perform these Heads of Agreement on behalf of all parties other than FS," i.e., that Lawson, Ford, and Gardner are authorized to act on behalf of Lawson, Ford, and Gardner. And it adds the equally meaningless statement that Lawson, Ford, and Gardner have the authority to stay litigation in Ohio.

I note that you and your attorneys often misrepresent that this second statement constitutes an agreement on the part of the Lawson, Ford, Gardner and Swaters, that litigation in Ohio shall be stayed pending the sale of the car. It does not say this. Nor did you or Lawson ever move the court for a stay. Nor was a stay ever entered. The indisputable facts, that you did not require the inclusion in the HoA of an agreement to enter a stay, and that you never moved for a stay, and that no court ever entered a stay, are part of the reason that your current "stay-pay-dismiss" formulation is a post hoc fabrication.

The second paragraph of the HoA states that all claims and counterclaims, known and unknown, will be waived and extinguished upon distribution of the proceeds of sale, and that when this distribution takes place, Swaters, Lawson, Ford and Gardner will execute a stipulation to dismiss "all action in Ohio." (My use of different words than are used in the HoA indicate my construction of the language that Bonhams used, and its conversion it into the correct American legalese.)

I am sorry, but I do not see in these words any reservation of Ohio jurisdiction over "ownership litigation," or even any distinction between "ownership litigation" and "HOA related litigation." Again, according to para. 1 of the HoA, the sole purpose of the HoA is to state the terms of a deal whereby Swaters, Lawson, Ford and Gardner have agreed to extinguish the parties' Ohio-venued ownership litigation claims. Again, maybe you could give us an example of "ownership litigation" which does not fall in the category of "HOA related litigation."

 

The Forged Bill of Sale

The posted bill of sale pertaining to the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 is a FORGERY.

The Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 was originally purchased by Jim Kimberly of the Kimberly/Clark Corporation. The second owner of #0384 was Mr. Howard Hively who purchased the Ferrari in 1955 from the 1st owner Mr. Jim Kimberly.

This information is readily available on the internet and you can find significant information in the book: They Started in MG’s written by Carl Goodwin.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pLvdrvxsaXwC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=John+Hassan+son+of+chuck+hassan&source=bl&ots=65RcpbEKVg&sig=fAkSw7vMGGCSCeTkASV7mxDRPVk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sxa_VLKoG838gwTxooKQBA&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=John%20Hassan%20son%20of%20chuck%20hassan&f=false

Open the above attachment then scroll to page 125 and observe the owner ( Hively) and driver (Hassan)of #0384. The race info for #0384 mistakenly listed the Ferrari 4.9 as a 1.9 liter.
Then scroll down to page 179 and observe further evidence of the ownership history of #0384.

Note: The ownership of #0384 by Howard Hively was very well known worldwide as well as in racing circles.

With just the slightest attempt, this information could be found by anyone who wanted to know ownership history of ‘The 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384’.


In the ‘Collectors Corner’ of Anamera, it is reported by Mr. Joe Ford thru an email that:

Howard Hively never bought it, but Jim Kimberly did let Howard race it. Kimberly had a stable of cars, as he could always afford the best and the latest. The 1958 Bill
of Sale is from Jim Kimberly direct to Karl Kleve. That same Bill of Sale mentions a small under dash fire, and since the alloy nose, hood, etc are old but not warped or totally
melted ( we have pics), there was no real fire as that alloy stuff would melt fast.

Note: The above information is FALSE and needs to be permanently removed from the Anamera website. The frontal aluminum section did NOT suffer fire damage. Although, the alloy nose was warped from being walked on, jumped on, cut on, bashed, bent, damaged, distorted and dissected. The Ferrari remains suffered NO fire damage anywhere on the carcass.


Collectors Corner - Ferrari 375 Plus: Anamera

Furthermore, Kleve was not a Scientist, he was not a Nuclear Physicist, and he was not an Atomic Scientist as reported in the Collectors Corner of Anamera.

Note: Karl Kleve did not know who Jim Kimberly was when he was interviewed; he certainly never purchased any Ferrari/ Ferrari’s from Jim Kimberly.

Forged Bill of Sale Facts:

The car never had mileage as stated on the FORGED Bill of Sale. ( No speedo/odometer)
The car was manufactured in 1954 and not in 1955
The car was beautiful and sold in running and driving condition with no damage or no mechanical faults.
The car was sold with a multitude of spare parts to the buyer. Not listed on the Forged Bill of Sale.
The car was owned by Hively in 1958 and not Kimberly. (Kimberly was running Maserati’s during that time)
The issue date on the Forged Bill of sale is also wrong; Kimberly was practicing for the 12 hour endurance race held in Sebring Florida. He raced his Maserati 200SI at that time.

The signature on the Forged Bill of sale is nothing close to the known signature of Jim Kimberly. (note attachment)

Automotive bill of sale criteria requires:

Complete name and complete address of seller ( erroneous)
Complete name and complete address of buyer (not avail)
Correct year of manufacture (wrong)
Mileage if applicable (forged)
Accurate description of the item being sold (wrong)
Make, model, and condition. (wrong)
Is the vehicle warranted or is it an ‘as is sale’(absent)

The attached Bill of Sale is a forged document in every possible way and was not the property of Karl Kleve.
Kleve could not produce this Bill of Sale document or any other Bill of Sale for the Atlanta Federal Trial. He even stated as much and now this ‘Forged Document’ is being displayed as if Karl Kleve had purchased the Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 in 1958.


The manufacture of this document could be looked upon as a criminal act.

Karl Kleve stated in an interview for the local newspaper that he did not purchase the Ferrari until the early 60’s. He also stated the same statement to all of us during more than a dozen meetings in over a 10 year period.

This FORGED B.O.S. document is an attempt to establish ownership rights and timetable that is wrong and unknown to the architect /architects of the Forged B.O.S.

It is obvious that the Forged document does not have PATINA due to age as would any document issued some 57 years ago. A simple acid test would date that Forged document and put that document where it belongs…….In The Garbage Can or better yet for criminal proceedings against its author.

Oh by the way, Karl Kleve NEVER stated to us that he paid 2,500 Dollars for the Ferrari Grand Prix racer, the figure he told to me, the investigators, historians and bounty hunters was less than what was listed on the Forged B.O.S. statement.

Also, since this document, “FORGED DOCUMENT” is now being displayed with its Forged signatory and forged issue date of 1958 then please explain how Kleve did not know or relinquish this VITAL information to the Green Township Police department on 1/24/1989 as partial proof of purchase. Or at the very least, Kleve could have used that to list the VIN number on the original incident report.





.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

you are making things up...Bill of Sale, doesn't need all the BS described... the extra information is to conform with DMV / VIN car registration when it came into being and to register the car for road use... Not for road use cars need only a simple bill of sale / release with signature from the owner stating they are selling the car with a description... as if it were some other kind of personal property.... in addition there was a quiet period during which the previous owner could have contested the sale, made a declaration of theft, casualty loss claim to account for losing the car... none of which happened Kleve is true and correct owner

 

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the previous ownership. I don't think anyone is seriously disputing that Karl Kleve owned the remains of 0384 when it was stolen.

The argument is only about what happened thereafter. Anything else is a diversion.

F

 

Seespotrun, I believe that Seespotrun is trying to claim that KK never owned the car and thus the car wasn't stolen be his cohorts. This is part of the same narrative that includes his claim that there was no stolen car report, sorry "Valid" stolen car report. The fact that the FBI thinks there is a valid report and all documentation states that KK owned the car doesnt fit that narrative so he ignores it...............

Or that's what it seems like.

 

For once I agree with you Timmmmmy (or however many m's you have). And I think that is daft as no one else in this sorry saga seems to dispute that Kleve originally owned the 0384 hulk.

 

+1 although I believe the Ohio BMV title and the questions that surround the original issue and subsequent amendments will be relevant when it comes to having it cancelled

 

I have googled and now understand an expression used on the "other site" that "Ford Pulls a Hail Mary on the Appeals Court". Not an expression used in the UK as such a pass made in desperation is prohibited in our equivalent game of rugby (and unnecessary in Englands stuffing of the Welsh in the Six Nations last night). It strikes me that this reinterpretation of the HoA forum selection clause between ownership and other disputes together with the Swaters secret deal to rehabilitate her fathers name fit into this "Hail Mary" description.

We will find out next week if OJ can repeat his metaphorical Roger Staubach winning pass in the 1975 NFL playoff game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Minnesota Vikings or if his fight is consigned to London

 

Said the man who admitted lying to the FBI in his 1989 trial, which ended in a hung jury, then the admited liar pled guilty to intimidation. The extent of the lies is still not known as only recently he reveals he had Georgia "paperwork" on the Ferrari though in 1989 under oath he admitting he never owned the car but only brokered it.

SeeSpotRun, please post the letters Bonhams wrote to you and your attorney. Please post the affidavit you signed. What agreement do you have with Christopher Gardner?

What tinhorn attorney told you that it is possible to compare a 1958 signature exemplar with a 1993 signature exemplar?

Kleve addressed the Hively sale at his 1989 trial. Why don't you post his testimony?

There is a reason this long dormant actor is now attacking Kleve and attempting to undermine, in any way, the present Ohio title.

It is best if SeeSpotRuin is simply ignored as now he is a paid shill by some folks who are in deep trouble for trying to sell someone else's property by auction in London.

I will post what Kleve said in 1989 under oath about his acquisition and the memo he recollected having somewhere.

Joe

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

 

After these excerpts, Guy Anderson's (SeeSpotRun as we now know) lawyer tries to confuse 76 yr old Kleve up by asking if "he has" a formal bill of sale as opposed to what Kleve said he remembered he had but could not find - an informal memo.

Note Kleve knew all about Kimberly, Hively, etc.

Note the value from a recent offer at the time.

Joe

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