The posts you have released are strictly self serving. You are NOT making sense when you continue to post documents that directly contradict each other. Example: Kleve says the car is stolen from 12/26/1988 to 1/24/1989. But, in his scripted you tube deposition he has a defining moment of 12/26/1888 as the date of theft. I like where he is allowed to bring his notes to read for the deposition. WOW! The only part that was not scripted is when he said he hired Daniels to bring back the car. No notes for that statement. So that would be true. You posted an FBI memo where they were told the car was stolen on 1/16/1989 now where do you think that information came from? BINGO yes you have it it came from the same source Karl the escaped mental patient Kleve. Note: This is the FBI (The Federal Bureau of Investigation) they dont guess the date of the offense! Furthermore, I have the FBI documents stating from EYE witnesses that the car was sitting on a trailer in Ohio in February. Would you like to see that to further confuse the already convoluted story? Perhaps you would like to change your time line again? Why dont you tell us when the car was stolen? Will you please state that simple detail for the readers, since you were NOT there and you dont have a clue? So lets get back to the Kleve affidavit that secured a Fraudulent Court Ordered title so you could attach and reattach your name on as an Ohio resident . that you are not. FYI: You need to live in Ohio a year and have an Ohio drivers license to be a resident. Would you like to recant your last post about being a resident? What about the honesty you are preaching? So I ask again .. How are you listed as owner on the fraudulently obtained title since you are not a resident of the state of Ohio? OJ post the now famous Affidavit for all to see what the honorable citizen Karl Kleve swore to in order to obtain a Fraudulent Court Ordered title in 1997. Do you really want to talk about value of the Hulk? I must remind you that 50,000 dollars was paid for the remains of the Ferrari carcass. The Ferrari dealer FAF knew value, and the principles at FAF looked at the junk then walked away in disgust. There was no way that 50,000 dollars was going to be paid by Ferrari experts who make their living buying and selling Ferrari value. Now are you (OJ) qualifying yourself as an expert in the valuation of all things Ferrari? You (OJ) are not qualified to appraise this Hulk or even guess at the value since you never viewed the remains, you were not a buyer. No one associated with the Hulk remembers ever hearing you name. Lets get something else straight while we are at it. Gerald Roush knew we purchased the Ferrari. Gerald Roush knew me personally. Gerald Roush also knew the seller very well and gave the 375 papers to him for the sale of the carcass. If Gerald Roush, The Ferrari principals, the Global race shop or the dozens of other viewers of the Hulk believed anything other than the Abandoned in an Ohio field story. Then, all the qualified Ferrari and race experts were aiding and abetting pertaining to the sale of the Hulk according to your posts. OJ you really need to get a grip! So your Stolen posts are another attempt to trick, fool and deceive the F-chat audience. Description of Posts: 1986 there was NO stolen report made for the Hulk 1989 only a complaint was made about an alleged stolen Gran Prix race silver in color and partially disassembled with just the wheels removed. No VIN, No title, wrong color, wrong and dishonest description, No NCIC report made and all verified. Note: Using a fraudulently acquired Court Ordered title, a stolen car report was made with that same Fraudulent Court Ordered title in 1997. Money changed hands between Kleve representative Mark Daniels and Belgium resident Lanksweert then that same stolen report was lifted in 1999 and never reinstated. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yet you did nothing to oppose this legally. You could have issued a writ in the UK Court or filed a reprieve against Judge Nadels order both of which would have been more effective then posting on FChat Again you did nothing legally to stop the surrender. What good is "protesting" when you could have applied for a stay yet you chose to consent to the surrender instead. The surrender was completed and Judge Martin declared it defective three months afterwards. Withdrawing your LPOA after the surrender was simply locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Ohio Title Law, like the UK is understandably strict and incorporates many restriction on registration including conveyance of a vehicle that is outside of the USA. The question remains has the current title complied with all Ohio Title Law and is it valid
Joe Ford claims that “a few” of the “letters [and] emails” in which Ford and Lawson’s “Ohio attorneys and UK attorneys” “clearly and repeatedly expressed in writing” “The Ford Lawson opposition and position,” with respect to the alleged expiration of the HoA in September 2013, are “already posted on this site at p. 61 #1210 and p. 115 #2293”??? That statement deserves at least three Pinocchios, signifying "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." “P. 61 #1210” attaches a two-page letter from Ince & Co (Joe Ford’s former UK attorneys) to Jones Day (Bonhams’ attorneys). The letter is dated June 26, 2014: the day before the auction. “P. 115 #2293” attaches this same June 26 letter, and adds a letter from Richard Rinear (one of Ford’s Ohio attorneys) to two attorneys at Jones Day and to Anthony Maclean at Bonhams. This letter is dated June 25, 2014: two days before the auction. P. 61 #1210 also includes an email from Scott Jones (Florence Swaters’ attorney) to Ed Collins (another one of Ford’s Ohio attorneys), dated June 26, 2014. In other words, this is not even an email from a Ford or Lawson attorney. Neither post includes any other emails. Regarding the two letters which did issue from a Joe Ford attorney, the Rinear letter consists almost entirely of a block quotation of a letter from a staff attorney at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, explaining why the BMV had put an administrative “hold” on the admittedly fraudulent 70/30 Ford/Lawson certificate of title. Mr. Rinear falsely states that Bonhams cannot convey good title to #0384 while this administrative “hold” on the fraudulent Ford/Lawson certificate of title remains in effect. He also falsely states that Ford and Lawson “have not authorized Bonhams . . . to act on this [certificate of] title on their behalf.” To the contrary, in paragraph 11 of the March 2013 HoA Ford and Lawson expressly authorized Bonhams to review “all existing registration documents, USA titles, Bill of Sales, and other conveyance documents they possess individually or jointly,” including “all US license, title and other documents evidencing the ownership of the Ferrari by Mr. Kleve and his heirs,” and further delegated to Bonhams unilateral authority to determine “the validity of which documents will be used in the conveyance to a new owner procured by Bonham’s [sic] for this Ferrari.” As is the case with Ed Collins’ June 26 email to Scott Jones, Rinear’s June 25 letter sure does not sound like that of an attorney whose client contends that the HoA ceased to be effective and controlling when the September 2013 Goodwood Festival came and went with no auction of #0384. You would expect at least one sentence like, "As you know, Lawson and 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." Instead, the only thing Rinear writes about is the BMV’s administrative “hold” on the fraudulent Ford/Lawson certificate of title, and his undeniably false representation that Ford and Lawson did not authorize Bonhams “to act on this [certificate of] title on their behalf." The two-page June 26 letter from Ince & Co to Jones Day likewise focuses on the BMV’s administrative hold on the admittedly fraudulent Ford/Lawson certificate of title. Ince & Co adds a number of false constructions regarding the substance and effect of this administrative hold on a certificate of title. In particular, Ince & Co falsely contend that #0384 cannot be sold until after the arbitration and the trial in the Gardner vs. Ford and Lawson case are final! This absurd contention does not seem ever to have been floated again. Not even Joe Ford, on these Ferrarichat pages, has repeated this nonsensical contention. Finally, halfway down the second page of this auction-eve letter, Ince adds the following makeweight: “[W]e would also reiterate the points raised in the previous correspondence in this matter. As you are aware, our client’s position is that the Heads of Agreement dated 12 March 2013 is not in force or legally binding and you do not have authority or the legal right to proceed with the Auction. It is our client’s view that when the Heads of Agreement expired, all of its terms expired, including the one wherein the ‘Belgian Contingency’ and the ‘Ohio Contingency’ would split the proceeds equally.” It is this statement alone which qualifies this June 26 missive as a letter in which Ford and Lawson’s “Ohio attorneys and UK attorneys” “clearly and repeatedly expressed in writing” “The Ford Lawson opposition and position,” with respect to the alleged expiration of the HoA in September 2013. That is pretty weak stuff. One paragraph in one letter. Not what you would expect. Nor is it consistent with Ford’s representation to the Court of Appeals, that the HoA’s forum selection clause survived the September 2013 Goodwood auction. Nor is it consistent with the Court of Appeals’ agreement with that representation. Nor is it consistent with Ford’s representations to Judge Martin in December 2013, that Gardner’s application to replace Ford’s name with Gardner’s name on the fraudulent Ford/Lawson certificate of title, should be denied on the ground that only Bonhams had the authority to rule on that application. Nor is it consistent with Judge Martin’s agreement with that representation. This single paragraph does limit the Pinocchios to three, not four. At the same time, this auction-eve paragraph does not answer the original objection, that Ford, Lawson, and their attorneys sure do not sound like people who had consistently contended, that the HoA had ceased to be effective 280 days previously. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Bill, you are clueless and blinded by your bias. You would make a my favorite type of opponent - the type who spouts off half-cocked with only a fragment of the evidence - i.e. the type that loses, the type that does not do their homework. Only a few communications are posted, yet you think you are smart enough to comment upon the other ten or more communications that are not posted. That is less than professional. I expected more from you. I have hired some pretty smart lawyers in the both US and the UK. They know what and when to say something, how to say something, and how often to say it. I am astounded that you (a CA licensed attorney) think you know enough about the letters and emails (at least ten over the course of months) that you have not seen to formulate a conclusion of any sort after being told that only a "few of them" are posted. Again, I expected better from you. Joe *
Kim, I challenge you to be consistent. By your logic, you are saying that Bonhams, and/or Swaters, and/or Gardner abandoned the HOA because they ALL failed to seek enforcement in the agreed UK forum. I say they did not abandon the HOA by failing to seek enforcement (specific performance) in the agreed forum before its expiration, I say they only limited themselves to a claim for damages (if they can prove breach) once the time for specific performance (auction submission deadline) passed. Those arguments may never be reached due the HOA fraud on the court and HOA fraud in the inducement claims (old and new) being reached first. As to the current Ohio title, Gardner has thrice tried to "reform" or "cancel" the current Ohio title in Ohio Court, and via the Ohio BMV and Gardner has thrice failed. The current Ohio Title listing Ford and Lawson as owners remains valid unless and until an Ohio court determines otherwise. Swaters' attorney admits as much when he seeks our consent to convey title using the Ohio Title on the night of June 26, which actually was June 27 in UK time. Joe *
Joe, you could have issued a writ through the London Courts to challenge the validity of the 2014 auction, an action that is provided for within the "dispute" terms of the HOA. Yet you chose to "protest" on FCHAT and letters that are at times ambiguous and are certainly not "consistent" We have seen the dramatic effect the "Zanotti" writ had on Bonhams the week before the auction and yet you did nothing. If you were serious, then ignoring a formal legal process simply makes no sense and makes your "pretty smart lawyers" look not so smart K
So Can someone who understands all this give a summary about under which jurisdiction and when this might all be decided? Or is this all - as I suspect - obfuscated by Joe and his maneouvrings? It's all getting a bit obtuse.
Why do you assume and suspect that it's Joe who is doing the obfuscation and maneouvering? I'm far more inclined to suspect the persons who keep referring to Kleve as an escaped mental patient. That kind of nastiness and petty vindictiveness is generally consistent with a certain lack of integrity...
And remember who filed this lawsuit against KKL. Swatters Then he could not or would not show up in front of a district court judge and ask for or get summary judgement. How many cars did he sell /broker all the time he dealt in Ferrari. Please This thing stinks. Swatters and his heirs have a stolen car. Love to see to 0384 show up back in America.
Absolutely agree. I dont always agree with Joe's methods BUT he didn't steal the car, indeed he didn't commit any of the multiple crimes connected with this car and yet most posters do like to blame him.......
Timmmmmmmmy, I agree with GordonC that Karl Kleve was the victim here and I dislike the personal attacks on him. I agree with you that OJ did not steal the car and add that his contribution to righting this wrong should be acknowledged. I also agree with you that I do not always agree with Joe methods. Call it blame if you like but it is good that there are posters prepared to question what OJ posts and equally positive that Joe engages in the debate. Joe is no shrinking violet and clearly someone who gives as good as he gets
Kim I hear you. Joe puts on what will work for his case. No doubt in my mind what the goal is for him. I don't think that he ever revealed all that he knows. Or what his next move is. Makes perfect sense to me. I would do the same. Just a question please. What would you do the day the lawsuit is filed against you? It appears KKL dosent have the money to fight this. Also lets not forget the car WAS STOLEN. Swatters picked this fight and I am very very glad Joe is on this case. Of course that does not make him right. I'm just glad someone is standing up to this theft.
Here is Karl Kleves 1993 Ohio title application . There is no doubt he owned the car, but the Ohio Title has always been from day one a false document. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Sean, given that Clarke had made little progress in negotiating a deal for the the parts/title KKL was trying to sell, it is totally understandable, that faced with a lawsuit she would engage on a contingency basis, someone to take up the case. I would have done the same. Given that she (nothing to the sisters) has been paid a total of $80,000 for 90% of the car and is now involved in litigation on two continents, with hindsight, you could suggest that she would have been better off trying to do a deal on the parts. As for her choice of the Ford/Gardner partnership, I believe they has been most effective in securing a settlement from Jacques Swaters daughter. Personally, if I was in her shoes, I would have been very happy with my share of 50% rather than jump back into litigation with OJ and his vendetta against Gardner on the promise of more
How did this copy escape the fire and the purge we may ask ! Four Pinocchios on the Legal Richter scale
My read on Kristi Lawson: she values the money she has been paid in the course of this litigation. Everyone can use a little extra cash. But Kristi Lawson values at least as much, if not more, that there come out of this an unqualified finding that Karl Kleve was a victim of theft and that Jacques Swaters is among the thieves. It has never been likely that Florence Swaters will concede the latter point. But sadly and ironically, among the 7 billion human inhabitants of Planet Earth, the absolute least likely to achieve that result is Joe Ford.
The obvious.... 1. Joey Ford Ohio resident?? This is just a "straw lease" to trick the BMV into his false residency requirement. 2. Joe Fords apartment was sub-leased from Lawsons friend, Tony 'The Man Dubose for only a month. Kristie Lawson owns the apartment! https://www.facebook.com/anthony.dubose.9 3. Ford and Lawson declared the value of the car to the BMV to be $175,000 for Tax reasons in order to obtain the title to defraud Gardner of all lien rights. 4. This is the letter to the BMV to place the Ohio Title on hold until it is cancelled by law. All this is public record Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Maybe I am reading your lower paragraph incorrectly BUT surely Gardner was the only agent to do a deal with Jacques Swaters and in his inimitable manner he did it by simply selling everyone else out and offering her the right to set her own terms. Potentially Ms. Swaters may also have believed that Mr. Gardner really did own all of the Ohio proceeds, the only other option is that she is just as calculating in her approach. Either way Joe will get his payday and KKL will likely get some form of justice.................
If I file a police report that my car is stolen. At what point can I qualify that. I assume you mean the court? Bill what would happen if 0384 shows up at cars and coffee (choose the location in the US). And KKL or Joe called law enforcement title in hand? Saying this is my car.
immediate impoundment by authorities... then the "show and tell" begins to verify ownership claims... may lead to full blown court before claims are fully settled while car remains in custody of the authorities
I can picture the scene. Joe would be waving his suspect title and Florence Swaters would be waving the Daniels release of theft status and the surrendered title her father paid $625,000 for. Cars, Coffee and Popcorn maybe !
