375+ # 0384

Keep reading the HOA, in its entirety, and you WILL see the words you are looking for. There are other specific clauses in the HOA that expressly address the ongoing Ohio ownership litigation and jursidiction. Maybe it could have been more artfully drafted, but the words are there, and the ACTIONS by Swaters' attorney on May 14, 2013 confirm how the parties interpreted and performed the HOA up to that point in time.

IMHO, the determinative clause is HOA paragraph two's reference that the parties agreed to enter an agreement (a furture uncertain event) to direct the trial court as to what to do (another future uncertain event), assuming the trial court approved. THAT AGREEMENT WAS NEVER REACHED because Lawson/Ford/Gardner's Ohio attorney Herb Haas proposed his version on April 18, 2013, then Swaters' Ohio attorney Scott Jones proposed his version on May 14, 2013, and then Swaters refused to sign her own attorney's version. Note that Swaters' Ohio attormey Scott Jones proposal shows the STAY was intended, as was the FUTURE contingent DISMISSAL.

The subsequent "dispute" about the meaning of the HOA terms was all a ruse by Swaters to miss the Sept 2013 auction deadline as she had secretly agreed with Bonhams. Thus the new fraud on the court allegations as made in appellate court, which WILL be heard in the trial court regardless of the appeal outcome as there is no Rule 60(B) time bar as to Swaters' fraud on the court, and IMHO she will lose. (The appeal court began to realize that Swaters' fraud on the court even affected what went on in the appeal court.)

So, in April/May of 2013, what was supposed to happen was this - when no agreed STAY order was agreed upon, the Ohio litigation SHOULD have simply marched on without interruption. That is how the HOA was designed to work. If you got a problem with that, go to London and get an enforcement or whatever. Clearly, the HOA contemplated entering a future agreement and the parties failed to enter a future agreement, which was a possible outcome of the HOA since it was an agreement to attempt to agree in that regard.

Instead, Swaters refused to sign her own attorney's proposed Order, then the Swaters "fabricated" stalemate ensued, Swaters chose the wrong venue to "enforce" the HOA, the trial court Judge gave a "knee-jerk" reaction and dismissed the case, we appealed, the appeal court reversed the trial court, then the trial court Judge dismissed the case again. Uggghhh. Thus the present appeal.

At the February 3, 2015 oral argument, the appeal court was beginning to grasp how to read the HOA in its entirety as to the two EXPRESS venue and jurisdiction clauses. This happened near the end of the proceeding as you will see, when Tim Smith spoke, according to my "tea leaves."

Below is the May 14, 2013 "clean copy" of the oposed "AGREED STAY OF ACTION" order drafted by Swaters' Ohio attorney Scott Jones. READ IT CAREFULLY!! NOTE THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT!! Ms Swaters refused to sign this.

Joe

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

 

Thank you for the lengthy reply. At least now I know how you connect the dots. It is a fanciful argument, and courts are capable of fancy at times. So good luck to you. In any event, if the May 2014 timeline repeats, it seems that the Court of Appeal will issue its opinion by the end of February. So we shall see.

 

Agree. Reading tea leaves is more art than science, but based on what went on at the end of the oral argument, it seems that the eyes of a few were opened as to the FACT that other HOA clauses specifically addressed the Ohio ownership litigation venue.

At one specific point one of the Appellate Judge interacted with Tim Smith and said something like ... So what you are saying is that we have to read the HOA as a whole and then we will see the other clauses that specifically address Ohio juridiction ... and Mr. Smith replied yes. As you know specific clauses supercede general clauses, and amibiguities are construed against the drafter, which in a "de novo" review as appeals court do, will be done, as to determining jurisdiction. They already did it once in their May 28, 2014 decision as to an HOA dispute (enforcement) that had arisen. This dispute is about the appellate order to reinstate our Ohio claims dismissed on June 9, 2014.

At the invitation of the appellate court, this affidavit was filed on Friday as part of Appellant's Joint Reply to Appellee's Reply in Opposition to Appellant's Motion to Remand.

Joe

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

 

Joe, I see the Court has overruled your motion to remand today, can you post a copy

K

 

My guess is that this was not a difficult decision. As I wrote in post #2814, a ruling on the appeal itself is going to return the mandate to the Court of Claims, whether the ruling is to affirm or to deny. If counsel for Ford and Lawson wanted a remand for the sole purpose of seeking relief from the March 2013 Swaters-Bonhams email exchange -- that a September 2013 sale should be postponed if this would increase the proceeds -- they needed to convince the Court of Appeals that Ford and Lawson would suffer irreparable harm if the Court of Appeals did not remand prior to ruling on the appeal. As far as I can tell counsel for Ford and Lawson never even saw this -- even though it was written right here on the World Wide Web. Much less did they argue it.

 

Two appellate orders came out today / a day ago.

In C140762 the appellate court GRANTED the Ford/Lawson Motion to Dismiss Gardner's Appeal, i.e. upholding Judge Martin's continuation of discovery in A1306451 despite sending Ford and Gardner to arbitration in FL.

In C140270 the appellate court DENIED the Ford/Lawson Motion to Remand, i.e. they will not send appeal back to trial court in A1001370 but will instead decide the appeal.

I think we will not have to wait long for the C140270 appellate decision. Can't read the tea leaves beyond that.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The title of the Ferrari #0384

The State of Ohio does NOT allow automobiles that are damaged, incomplete, or dismantled to be titled.

Any incomplete vehicle (such as the remains of the Ferrari Hulk #0384) in the State of Ohio is required by law for the title to be surrendered for cancellation and destruction.

So, I ask Ocean Joe (again) to post the Kleve Affidavit that was used to apply for the Court Ordered title. Also… who was it that completed the VIN verification?

How is it that an Ohio ‘Court Ordered’ title could possibly be issued for a vehicle approximately 5000 miles away, in Belgium?

It is required that owners have, in their possession, the vehicle they are attempting to title. Otherwise, anyone could buy a ‘Court Ordered’ title, insure the vehicle with that title, then list the car stolen and collect insurance on a ‘Phantom Vehicle.’

This is exactly why title laws are in place!

Furthermore, an individual must be a resident of Ohio to be listed as an owner on the Ohio title. So how is it that you (OJ) are listed on the Ohio title?

Do you not reside in Florida? Isn’t that where Christopher Gardner previously lived? Doesn’t Mark Daniels live in that same area of South Florida?

Wow, isn’t that one wild coincidence? Or is it?

Since all three of you lived in the same area of Florida, did you guys pal around and share Ferrari stories?

Note: Individuals can be listed on an Ohio title as a lien holder, like your Florida neighbor Mark Daniels did back in 1997. Daniels also promised to bring back the beautifully restored Ferrari 375 Plus to Ohio with that same fraudulently acquired title.

Why have you attempted to list a resident of Belgium (Lanksweert) as an expert in the U.S. ownership history of the 375 Plus? How could you possibly believe that Lanksweert can certify ownership? Please explain that one.

So let’s see if I can get this straight. Daniels sells a fraudulently acquired Court Ordered title to Lanksweert for a huge sum of money (+600K). The fraudulent title is used to list #0384 stolen for the first time in 1997. Then Daniels receives a series of checks, cashes them, and we know the rest.
Kleve gives Daniels the OK to act on his behalf with full authority via a signed POA. Kleve then waits for the return of the newly restored Ferrari, created exclusively through the efforts of many others.

So let’s see the KLEVE AFFIDAVID that has enabled you to claim ownership on a title that should have NEVER been issued in OHIO for an incomplete junked-out frame.

So, what was Kleve’s plan at that time?

Sell the title again? Or try to list the car stolen, a second time, after it was deleted from the NCIC crime computer in 1999.

As you know…law enforcement will only list and delist the same vehicle as “stolen” one time.

How is it that the Ohio title record lists the purchase date of 3/24/1994 on the “Grand Prix Roadster” title legend and how is it that the condition is listed as “Good Condition”?

Maybe we should be addressing creditability issues you talked about earlier.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Easy. By seeking a court order. Do not confuse an initial issuance (pre-theft) with subsequent issuances (post theft).

Easy. I leased a place in Cincinnati.

The really wild coincidence is how PARTS from the only Ferrari 375 Plus not already in a major collector's hands are stolen from Karl Kleve on January 13, 1989, shipped out as PARTS on February 25, 1989, and on March 14, 1989 appear in the hand of one Michel Kruch, friend of Lancksweert who did car deals together. Kruch's shop is five miles away from Swaters shop. The paperwork on arrival is revised paperwork showing that the exported PARTS magically (i.e. fraudulently) arrived as a VEHICLE.

Note that a VEHICLE was never exported. PARTS were exported, without owner consent.

I did not list Lancksweert as an expert. You really should learn how to read. That way we can have meaningful communication on this website. The significance of Lancksweert's September 2, 1999 signed and notarized admission that Karl Kleve owned the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus VIN #0384AM VEHICLE is that it contradicts Swaters' 2005 and 2010 (false) claims that Swaters bought the VEHICLE in 1989. Swaters also has problems with renumbering it to 0394AM.

C-R-E-D-I-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. . ??? . . . Hi Chris. Guy must be cutting and pasting without a spell check - or did he give you his sign in info so that you could assume his identity? LOL. How pathetic.

Please post (via Guy) for this board the Affidavit that Guy Anderson made for you (via your Ohio attorney Zac Gottesman). How much did you agree to pay Guy Anderson, and in how many installments?

Also, since it is apparent that no one on your team does their homework, or does timelines, let me help you out, just a little.

On October 28, 1993, Karl Kleve files suit to obtain his Ohio Title by court order. (This is YEARS before Mark Daniels arrves on the scene.)

On March 1, 1994, Judge William Stewart Matthews issues his order "This Court, having heard applicant and having reviewed the sworn application filed in this matter, finds that said application is well taken, and that same should, and hereby is Granted."

On March 24, 1994 the State of Ohio issues the Ohio Title as it was ordered to do (#3100400566). Under "PREVIOUS OWNER" the Ohio Title states "AUTHORITY OF 4505.10 ORC."

You confuse ownership (when an owner sells to a buyer) with the indicia for ownership (Ohio Title).

Guy, or guy, I urge you to hire a real attorney if you still don't get it.

Joe

*

 

Partial Post Ocean Joe,

Ocean Joe by his many ‘Partial Posts’ does not allow the good readers of this chat to comprehend what took place starting in 1988 pertaining to this wonderful 375 Plus #0384.

This next information is posted for the benefit of Ocean Joe to better understand the events of 1989.

The under oath statement about the Ferrari was in regards to specific questions you have held back from the readers. I will inform them for you.

The prosecution wanted to make issue about the 50,000 dollars paid for the Ferrari. The questions were in relation to the 50,000 dollars paid for the car and the origin of the funds was the underlying question. I said “I did not buy the car” since that was performed by Christian. I did not say “I do not own the car.”

A full partnership was offered later by Christian for my participation.

During my 1st interview with the FBI agents I explained to Special Agent May that the hulk was not listed in Ohio as stolen. I had just returned from my second trip to Cincinnati, Ohio where that information was CONFIRMED. 1/1989 and 3/89

S.A. May placed that fact in the FBI report that I have in my possession. If you (OJ) want a copy so you can alter your timeline again, let me know and I will post it.

This discussion stirred some real interest with the dozens of FBI agents listening to my Ferrari discussion at the Richard B. Russell building in Atlanta. The description of the vehicle given by Kleve to the Ohio FBI was seriously distorted and I knew something was really wrong the more the FBI talked about the car. I then chose to exercise my rights to remain silent. I was asked where the hulk was and I ended with “I don’t know”.

The readers here see how you constantly distort words, phrases and posts. If you were correct in your interpretation then you would not be fighting with everybody at every turn.

Tell me about the hung jury you keep talking about. I thought that you knew a little about this case, but since you were not a participant, I am now convinced you know absolutely nothing pertaining to the Facts of the Atlanta Trial or the Ferrari 375Plus #0384.

Your partial posts of the documents to obtain an audience from this F-Chat forum are becoming more and more obvious. Why are you leaving out supportive posts…it is making this story impossible to follow for the readers.

In regard to the Jim Kimberly forged signature on the forged bill of sale, the signature of gentleman Jim is “forged” and it was forged sometime in the 90’s when the document magically appeared for the first time. Signatures do not change from year to year as you imply.

Oh by the way what is a tinhorn attorney?

Kleve addressed the Hively sale at the 1989 trial?????? What are you kidding me?????

Karl Kleve was an escaped mental patient with a history of mental problems and issues.

Kleve did not know the color of the car, the Vin number, or the year of the car. He did not know Kimberly and wasn’t sure of Hively but had heard the name. Kleve stated that he bought the Ferrari from a dealer and asked expressly who the selling dealer was, he did not know. Asked if it was Hively, he said he heard that name but he was not the seller.

Kleve answers at the Atlanta Trial were COACHED by Ferrari experts that were subpoenaed to appear by the FBI. Those experts were Stan Nowak and Gerald Roush.

Why do you talk about Christopher Gardner? I never met the man.

I caught your subtle little SEESPOT RUIN that you listed on the next to the last line. I have always liked nick names. “Thanks” So should I slip in SLOPPY JOE for effect? Nah, I think not.

Now let’s talk about the “Potential Witness” you keep referring to.

What are you implying? What is the meaning of Intimidation of a ‘Potential Witness’?

What potential witness are you referring to?



1. po•ten•tial/pəˈten(t)SHəl/
adjective
1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
noun
2. latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
3. the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.

Perhaps like: You could have been a ‘potential’ winner in the lottery.

Or like this: Ocean Joe would like to be a ‘Potential’ owner of a Ferrari 375 Plus. Except ………..you know the rest.

 

In The Beginning
1989

The remains of a 50’s style race relic sat on a car trailer in a cul-de-sac between the Atlanta area Ferrari dealer know as F.A.F and a high profile race fabrication shop know as Global Imports.

The old town of Tucker, Georgia was the location of the mystery car. This area is just outside of Atlanta Georgia and five miles from Stone Mountain, Georgia the home of ‘The Ferrari Market Letter’.

Word spread quickly about the junk on a trailer. This junk was just rescued from 20 years of neglect and elements. The curious wanted to know more, but the new owner did not know what he had rescued from an abandoned junk pile in the outskirts of Cincinnati, Ohio.

One of the first to view the carcass was Mr. Gerald Roush. He heard about the discovery and was the first to identify the remains as a Ferrari. He immediately recognized the Hulk as an item he had much research time invested in. He turned over all of the documents of chassis #0384 to the seller. Roush made some very interesting comments in reference to the junk Ferrari.

Gerald Roush released papers’ stating this Hulk was stolen off a trailer some 3 years prior (attached). The seller explained to Gerald Roush of the Ferrari Market Letter, he knew this junk sat in the woods for over 20 years without being moved, and he often tried to locate the owner who was believed to be deceased.

Mr. Gerald Roush further explained to the seller that 2 other Ferrari 375 Pluses were carrying the same # 0384 and perhaps 3 cars other than the hulk exist. One of the Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 was in a prominent collection in Italy. The second 375 Plus #0384 was located in South America. The 3rd Ferrari 375 plus #0384 may be located in Asia.

Gerald Roush also asked if the engine had been found for the hulk. The seller stated he did not locate the engine in the junk yard. Gerald’s research showed the original engine to have been installed in a speed boat.

Ferrari owners, Ferrari enthusiasts, Ferrari employees, friends, race car owners, race car drivers, race car enthusiasts, even race car team owners all viewed the carcass sitting on a trailer in the cul-de-sac. They viewed the junk in disbelief as evidenced by NO takers for this (newly identified) rotted out hulk for 50,000 dollars.

For two weeks this went on and then the trailer was needed by the owner of Global Imports. The Global Imports company truck and trailer were used to recover the abandoned Hulk that had sunk into the earth over a period of 20 years. There was a good sized tree that grew up thru the engine bay that had to be cut down with a chain saw to rescue the carcass. The recovery effort for this hulk was performed during a 12 hour period to release the hold the earth had on the Ferrari carcass.

Gary Kelly (a good friend) was employed by Global Imports at that time. He called me to look at the Ferrari carcass. We set the appointment for the middle of the next day.

I went to look at the Ferrari that had just been moved to a storage unit a block down the road. My brother was visiting for the holidays and went along for the ride. . We went to meet Gary and the seller at Global before being brought to the storage unit.

When I first viewed the hulk it was pathetic. The bottom of the car was rusted and still wet from sitting a foot deep in the mud. The tubes on the back head rest were sawed off.
The rear main support arm had been hack sawed off and discarded. The removal of the chassis tubes allowed rapid rusting since the elements now penetrated the inner metal of the chassis tubes.

The price of 50,000 dollars was wanted for the remains, and that was a world record price for what was there. The paperwork issued by Gerald Roush of The Ferrari Market Letter stated the car was stolen some 3 years earlier in 1985. I immediately questioned that and the seller stated “that was not true”. I asked for a few days to do my due diligence and the seller said, “It’s not going anywhere.”

Before leaving, I told the seller if the car checks out we may have a deal. I was given copies of all the paperwork at that time.

It took time to check out any ownership claims or stolen reports thru the Police, Sheriffs, NCIC, GCIC, the Georgia DMV, the Ohio BMV, The Ohio Police, and all reporting agencies.

The agencies looked for ownership history, title, liens, encumbrances, and any other claims against the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. None were reported by any agency anywhere in the U.S.A.

There was no way anyone would purchase this pile for 50,000 and when I called the Ferrari collectors and experts they all turned the junk down flat. There were some very well know names that refused the carcass because of the condition. Most valued the remains at less than 2,000 dollars as I did. But I decided to promote a package deal for the full restoration of the car and promote the chassis as a basis to recreate the Ferrari using old world artisans back in Europe.


To be continued:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe, I am surprised you can quote chapter and verse on Kleves registration including the Court order and yet have not seen or can produce the all important sworn affidavit that was given in support of the application.

My question is, given that Wexner claims that he faces imprisonment if he tries to register his car in Ohio can you explain why you consider the current Ohio BMV title to be valid and why you still have 0384 registered in your own name ?

K

 

Guy,

I never said you met Gardner, yet you try to be so clever by "answering" a question I did not ask while avoiding the question that I did ask.

You admitted lying to the FBI so in my view you and your posts are not trustworthy. See below for a truthful account - IMHO you knew it was stolen and you said you could "make it disappear."

The 1988 photographs of the Kleve's Ferrari show no tree (nor sapling) was growing up through it, so there was no "tree" in the engine bay to cut down in January of 1989. Others would not buy Kleve's Ferrari as it sat in Atlanta for $50,000 because they knew it was not being sold by the owner - i.e. it was "hot".

A thief cannot convey title to stolen goods. Let's just leave it at that. Neither you, nor your buyer could acquire title to Kleve's Ferrari from a thief (or a trafficker).

IMHO, your dishonorable acts have hurt many people. You hurt Karl Kleve, his children, and his grandchildren. You were instrumental in depriving young children of their rightful inheritance, and all for what?

Kowing what we know today, I think a jury would put you in jail.

Joe

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

 

So was it stolen in 01/86 as stated by M. MASSINI on post #2 or in 01/89 as per the Green Township PD?

Does that mean we will have two other #0384 threads on Fchet?

 

Kim

The hearing refers to testimony as well as the affidavit. Whatever the testimony was and whatever the documents were - they were sufficient to satisfy the Judge. I recall Kleve having had fires at his home and that may be how records and the original title was lost.

The current Ohio title is the last link in an ownership chain that began in 1958. The key to focus on is that Swaters' appointed business agent admitted on September 2, 1999 that Karl Kleve was the owner of the "1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM" and that it was "removed from his possession in 1989." Swaters ratified that document, submitted it to an Ohio court, and then Swaters' forensic document expert said the document was altered after Kleve signed, but not altered after Lancksweert signed. Most people face the music when evidence like that emerges.

Even Swaters recognizes that the current Ohio title was valid and that the Ohio BMV administrative hold needed to be lifted if title for Lot 320 were to be transferred. This comes from Swaters' attorney! What do you think prompted Swaters' attorney to send the below email, late on the eve of the auction?

Below is the email that Copley/Wexner will find very, very useful. --- Note the date and the sender! --- Phatboy's one and only post (p.59 post 1173) referred to this event that the email speaks of. I think it is a beaut! Again, most people face the music when evidence like this emerges.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So here is what I am talking about.


Ocean Joe you did it again. You just posted some more FLUF for the readers but hold back the part where Kettler, under cross examination, said he lied about the story to the FBI and at that moment in the courtroom, the FBI jumped out of their chairs and were …. “FURIOUS.”…then stormed out.

Ocean Joe you claim you have studied law. Then when the court asks for a plea and the response is NOT GUILTY what do you think that means. Then you claim IMHO you knew it was stolen and you said “you could make it disappear” What is wrong with you?

Ocean Joe I just have to ask this and please don’t take offense; Are you delusional?

Let’s start with the simple fact the car was not listed stolen. That is what I knew and know, the jury of 12 agreed with us. We were victorious and walked out of court free men in 1989. So why don’t you give that sad old song a rest.

Now produce the Kleve affidavit for the ‘Fraudulent Court Ordered’ title and stop your phony fact finding mission. GO ON! This will be liberating since you can’t be an owner using a Fraudulent title.
.
Note: The tree growing through the chassis was very well known and that certifies that you know less than I originally claimed. Try the estate of Stan Nowak; they should still have it unless the picture was relinquished to the courts as evidence.

A thief can not convey title to stolen goods…….What???? Are you kidding me???

NO, Lets NOT leave it at that! Let’s examine that really insane statement!

The Hulk was deemed a GOOD FAITH purchase so now read what that means. Maybe, just maybe, you will begin to comprehend why the FBI could NOT seize the Hulk on any continent.

By the way, The FBI knew exactly where I sent the Hulk. Do you know how I know?
I told them!


Good Faith
Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.
Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.
The term good faith is used in many areas of the law but has special significance in Commercial Law. A good faith purchaser for value is protected by the Uniform Commercial Code, which every state has adopted. Under sections 1-201(9) and 2-403 of the code, a merchant may keep possession of goods that were bought from a seller who did not have title to the goods, if the merchant can show he or she was a good faith purchaser for value. To meet this test, the person must be a merchant, must have demonstrated honesty in the conduct of the transaction concerned, and must have observed reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade. A buyer would likely meet these requirements if the purchase proceeded in the ordinary course of business. If, on the other hand, the purchase took place under unusual or suspicious circumstances, a court might conclude that the buyer lacked good faith.
Where a nonmerchant purchases property that the seller lacks legal title to convey, the issue of good faith is known both as the innocent purchaser doctrine and as the bona fide purchaser doctrine. If the purchaser acquires the property by an honest contract or agreement and without knowledge of any defect in the title of the seller, or means of knowledge sufficient to charge the buyer with such knowledge, the purchaser is deemed innocent.
In both commercial and noncommercial law, persons who in good faith pay a fraudulent seller valuable consideration for property are protected from another person who claims legal title to the property. If a court establishes the purchaser's good faith defense, the person who claims title has recourse only against the fraudulent seller. Strong public policy is behind the good faith defense. Good faith doctrines enhance the flow of goods in commerce, as under them, buyers are not required, in the ordinary course of business, to go to extraordinary efforts to determine whether sellers actually have good title. A purchaser can move quickly to close a deal with the knowledge that a fraudulent seller and a legitimate titleholder will have to sort the issue out in court. Of course, the purchaser will be required to demonstrate to the court evidence of good faith.
THE YALE LAW JOURNAL
VOLum 63 JUNE 1954 NUMBErS S
THE COMMERCIAL DOCTRINE OF GOOD FAITH PURCHASE
GRANT 1LMORE-I
THE triumph 4 the good faith purchaser has been one of the most dramatic
episodes in our legal history. In his several guises, he serves a commercial
function: he is protected not because of his praiseworthy character, but to
the end that commercial transactions may be engaged in without elaborate
investigation of property rights and in reliance on the possession of property
by one who offers it for sale or to secure a loan. As the doctrine strikes roots in
one or another field, the "good faith" component tends to atrophy and the
commercial purchaser is protected with little more than lip service paid to
his "bona fides."


Let’s address your interpretation of dishonorable acts.
1 The FBI was offered the hulk back for the cost of purchase and shipping along with the airfare for me to bring it back home. They declined.
2 Kleve was offered 200,000 dollars by me for any interest he may have in the Hulk.
3 Kleve decided to have Mark Daniels seize the beautifully restored vehicle INSTEAD and we all know how that greedy act turned out.
4 I had a meeting with the family namely Kristy Kleve to help her father since he was loosing all he owned by constantly fighting the system. You know that story as well.
Now let’s talk about the kid’s inheritance.
I am depriving the kids of nothing since you are mastering that task by yourself.
You are the one charging 70% from the Kleve family and your ex- partner is claiming the rest. None of you have transported, purchased, built, painted, located pieces, found artisans to rebuild the chassis, alloy bodywork, paid for any repairs, paid for shipping, paid for duty, you did not pay any costs on any part of this beautiful Ferrari 375 plus. But you are eager to raise your hand to claim ownership using fraudulent documents, namely the Court Ordered title and the Gentleman Jim Kimberly forged bill of sale.

So you can get it straight, we were the good faith purchasers of the Ferrari 375 Plus and you know what that means.
You on the other hand have What?
Now to clear up another story you keep telling that is not true.
The VIN plate was not turned over to the Green Township a few days after 1/24/1989 and not as you claim in the attached statement. The FBI in LA received the VIN plate in March 1989.
Furthermore, there was no human being that offered 1,000,000 dollars for the junk from Europe. If there was you would have a name of that buyer.
And the story where Kleve was offered 500,000 for the Hulk by a Frenchman that is more
Urban Legend’.

The attached VIN says: 3/7/89 reg copy as evidence S.A. John E Carroll FBI Los Angeles California
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

`And can we see your reply please Joe?

 

Sure. See below. Our concerns about potential buyers not even attending the auction or not participating in the bidding if they did attend could not be overcome.

Note how they kept Zanotti from us even at this late moment, despite Zanotti having made his ownership claim on the 24th.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I believe it was stolen in January 1986 but not exported until January 1989. In the mean time certain characters such as Guy Anderson where trying to shop the car to anyone that was willing to pay cash money. Karl Kleve would not have been aware of the theft since his land was not err well groomed and the car had sat there so long he wouldn't have had the need to check it. You could add a fourth claimant, I quote from post 597 on this thread;

Early on there was confusion that Michael Sheehan thought he had bought 0384AM in 1986 from Gary Trout, but when Sheehan tried to collect it, Trout said it had been "stolen" when in fact Trout never had much less owned it. Thus the 1986 Stolen Car ad by Sheehan in Roush's Ferrari Market Letter for 0384AM. When 0384AM appeared in Atlanta in late January of 1989, Sheehan again placed a stolen car ad in the Ferrari Market Letter thinking again that he had bought it. Thus the first 1989 stolen car ad. Sheehan helped the FBI too once he realized what was going on, that 0384AM was Kleve's car, and that Trout had only managed to "possess" the gas tank and the VIN plate, which were both recovered by the FBI in early 1989. Rousch routed all replies to the stolen car ad to Kleve once Roush realized what was going on.

So that version of #0384AM never existed, the other three have for a fact never left nor entered the Ferrari gates, but wait there is more excitement. The claim of Sr. Jose Zanotti Cavazzoni that was paid out by Bonhams days before the auction was based on the claim that he owned the "real" 0384AM and that his #0384AM had been delivered through Argentina and ended up with Zanotti in Venezuela which didn't fit with any real evidence. South America does have several well known makers of racing specials and there is no reason to doubt that Jim Kimberly did indeed have #0384AM, so all of the other claimants are indeed fakes.

One brief point in replyto Seespotrun, regarding value of the hulk and your claim you could only get offers of $2k for it, is that Mike Sheehan wanted to buy #0384AM, albeit in 1986 he wouldn't have known who actually owned it nor perhaps the condition but he definitely wanted the car. Considering the values of classic cars were escalating rapidly from 1985 thru 1989 it would be incorrect to claim the car had no value, especially by 1989. For an easy example, values of 250 GTO through the period, 1985 - $500k, 1986 - $1 million, 1987 - $2 million, 1988 - 5 million, 1989 - $10 million, the inevitable crash occurred in 1991/2. In 1986, the hulk would have been worth maybe $50k and by 1989 as much as $500k, hell it was shopped for US$1 million in Europe in 1989. AFAIK the only reason offers could have been that low would be that the purchasers knew it was stolen and valued it accordingly.

 

The document that I posted was direct from the owner of The Ferrari Market Letter.

His name was Gerald Roush and he was a Ferrari Historian Extraordinaire before he passed.

Gerald Roush and Mr. Massini most likely exchanged information regularly that pertained to the Ferrari Marque.

The document is confirmation of a scam that took place in 1985 where Gary Troute sold the 375 Plus that was sitting in a junk yard. The VIN plate was removed and sent to a well known Ferrari buyer and collector Mike Sheehan in California. Sheehan paid 1000 Dollars for the Hulk then subsequently the seller claimed it had been stolen on a trailer. That same car remained in the junk yard for 3 more years.

Rare cars can be replicated when the VIN number is not being used. This was the case of #0384 before it was pulled out of the mud in Ohio in 1988.

Since a Ferrari with the number #0384 was in South America the word was the FBI was planning to seize it. Somehow the word got out and the fabricator changed the VIN number to #0386. It has been said that both of the #0384 cars went with #0386 after the remains of #0384 was discovered in Ohio.

No one has been able to produce records of #0386 being constructed by Ferrari or Pininfarina yet there have been some who claim it was built. I sure would like to see that build sheet.
The car was listed as stolen off a Fraudulent Court Ordered title in 1997 only and not before.
It was alleged to be stolen prior to the first stolen car report of 1997 and removed in 1999 when Mark Daniels sold the 1st Fradulent title to lanksweert for a stated +600K

 

Guy,

You and your posts have no credibility.

If you were honest, I would post below some FBI records that show 0384AM was the known VIN from the dataplate at least as early as Feb. 17, 1989 and that the FBI had located it, had pictures of it, and a few days later obtained it. FBI records also point to info received from Roush even earlier that referred to it as 0384AM.

If you were honest, I would post below the official FBI Feb. 24, 1989 input of the VIN into the FBI system and amending their prior theft report. This document gives fantastic insight into how the FBI worked and assigned people on the case to do interviews / gather evidence in Ohio, Califormia, Georgia, Texas, and Michigan. Texas and Michigan . . . . care to guess why?

The FBI has the name of the several 1989 buyers in Europe but the FBI records that I have are redacted as to their names, but three are identified with addresses and phones (Rome, Paris, and Monaco). An Interpol case was opened up on one of the European buyers, all of whom withdrew from buying ($800,000 to $1,000,000 according to the FBI) once they realized it was stolen property.

If you or Kruch actually bought in good faith, then why was it at such a steep discount? If Kruch was cleared by Belgian authorities, then why did he let it go for 1/10 the value to Swaters? As between Kruch and Swaters, who do you think had the pull to get the impound removed despite the fraudulent declarations on the import documents?

But because you are dishonest, I will not reward you by posting actual documents - I would rather let you remain just plain wrong.

I have an idea. You post the affidavit you gave to Gardner's attorney a few months back and then I will post the Feb. 17, 1989 document referred to above. Ok? Quid pro quo.

Joe

*

 

Thank you for the explanation.

 

Joe, you still haven't answered the question

You surrendered the last original title to Bonhams in September 2013 under the terms of the HoA and the application to put the BMV on hold was simply to stop this title being changed again. What I do not understand is why you maintain that this surrendered title is still valid and why it is still in your name ?

 

Ed Collins's September 26 email sure does not sound like that of an attorney whose client opposes the auction sale scheduled for the following day. You would expect at least one sentence to express this opposition, e.g., "As you know, Kristi Lawson and Joe Ford have consistently contended that Bonhams' actions since September 2013 have been without authorization and in excess of the agency extended to Bonhams in the HoA."

 

Exactly my thoughts too.

 

The Ford Lawson opposition and position was clearly and repeatedly expressed in writing in letters by email by both Ohio attorneys and UK attorneys.

But, you already (should) know that since a few of them are already posted on this site at p. 61 #1210 and p.115 #2293.

Not true Kim. That title was sent to an agent to comply with the Aug 19. 2013 Order, under protest, which was later reversed as unlawful. I withdrew my LPOA on September 24, 2014, Lawson withdrew hers on Feb. 18, 2015 and requested the return of her property. So, Bonhams current possission of the Ohio title document is no longer a valid possesssion. The Ohio BMV blocks any conveyance of that title, PERIOD. Unless and until there is a court order to change that title, it remains valid.

Ohio title law is very strict about conveyances and there are formalities to observe. You should read up on it so that you can truly understand the discussion.

Joe

*