375+ # 0384

while on the topic of TV, there are any number of programs that displayed what looked ( to the ignorant ) like a pile rusting metal sans bodywork... turned into multimillion dollar museum quality cars... giving validity to the cliché "one mans trash, is another mans treasure..." and contradicting your valuation of the car... history has proven you and your valuation wrong... making you look unaware from which direction the wind is blowing from, while your shoes are getting soaked

 

Dear Ocean Joe,

There you go again. You have no come back yet you still sing the same old song. It is clear that you don’t know squat about the history of #0384.

Everyone now knows you withheld the fraudulent Kleve affidavit for a Court Ordered title on #0384. And a lot of other pertinent information proving you own nothing Ferrari.

The production of the Fraudulent Court Ordered title is due to MY posts and not yours OJ. I gave you every opportunity to redeem yourself and you chose to look the other way.

Here is the updated version of your lame sob story.

Two men (I only met 1) were offered a deal from the FBI to turn ‘States Evidence’ after selling a Hulk to Christian and I for 50,000. That Hulk was 1st identified by the World Renown Ferrari Historian, Gerald Roush. The men returned 45,000 dollars of the sale proceeds to the FBI minus a girlfriend’s truck purchase. The sale proceeds ( 45,000)were received by Karl Kleve according to Karl Kleve himself during many witnessed meetings. Period!

It is known that Kleve sold the fraudulently acquired Court Ordered title in 1999 thru another Bounty Hunter named Mark Daniels. Kleve issued Daniels a Power of Attorney to act on his behalf and that resulted in the LEGAL SALE of the ILLEGAL TITLE.

So why are you here?

Now.
What trial date and what was the location where the two men were convicted of stealing a Ferrari from Ohio? I just don’t recall that trial ever happening. Did that happen in Ohio since that trial did not happen in Atlanta.

You said 3 more men were charged then cut loose. What are you talking about?

You also said the government could not convince the jury that those three ( 3) were smart enough to KNOW the property was stolen…What? All were acquitted which means,
“NOT GUILTY”.

Do you know how our justice system works?
“You are innocent until proven guilty”.
Did they NOT address that at your law school?

We won on the facts and that the purchase was a “Good Faith” purchase of an Abandoned Hulk.

OJ you can try to spin that however you like, but the facts are in and there is no changing the facts (1989). No matter how hard or desperately you try.

Fact: The government “COULD NOT CONVICT” not convince.

There you go again with your spin on words. I’m getting awfully tired of this silly play on words

So let’s get to it:
Produce a picture of Kleve next to the Hulk.
Produce YOUR pictures of the Kleve junk yard.
Post when you first met Karl Kleve and gathered all of this pertinent information.
Produce a Real stolen car report from 1989 and not that complaint that you posted.
Produce any REAL document that shows Kleve as an owner. And do not re- post that blatantly forged Bill of Sale and now known fraudulent title.
Produce the trial location where the trial was held and 2 men were convicted of stealing a Ferrari.
Produce when this trial occurred, and who represented the 2 men at that trial.
Then show us how you can claim ownership on a significant Ferrari using forged and fraudulently acquired documents.


You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Hey OJ look below at this definition .


1. lie
noun
1. an intentionally false statement.

 

Bill, given Joe gave a valuation of $12m before the aborted Revival auction and it ended up going for $18m nine months later at the FOS, what was the damage apart from his reputation as an expert valuer ?

 

The Old Cheezy post:

total BS, the challenge regarding Kleve's ownership... his ownership is undisputed, ... there is more to ownership than producing a bill of sale, Kleve did not need one... he satisfied his claim to the court which is sufficient and ALL that is nee... only the antagonists are making noises about ownership, after the fact...in trying to justify their actions... and stay out of jail

SEESPOTRUN response:

Kleve did not nor could not prove an ownership claim in Federal court in Atlanta. This is why the FBI could not travel to Belgium and seize the Hulk. This is also why Interpol could not seize and ultimately were required to release any hold on the hulk. It is why Kleve frantically applied to the Ohio BMV for title (1989) and Kleve was denied since he had no proof of ownership. That info is referenced in the letter to his congressman.

So Kleve’s ownership was disputed by me and all others that pled “NOT GUILTY’ as was the BS stolen report you have been brainwashed to believe.

In Ohio they were not aware that Kleve lied ( 1994) on the Kleve affidavit for a Court ordered title and there is now a hold on the fraudulently acquired document.

Fact: 1989 when I went to Ohio and checked on any stolen report, I found out it there was NO Ferrari stolen car report entered into the system. I asked about Kleve at the Police station and they knew Kleve very well. They had just released him on nuisance and vagrancy laws that morning. When I asked about Kleve owning a Ferrari all confessed that they knew of NO Ferrari that Kleve owned.



New Cheezy post:
while on the topic of TV, there are any number of programs that displayed what looked (to the ignorant) like a pile rusting metal sans bodywork... turned into multimillion dollar museum quality cars... giving validity to the cliché "one mans trash, is another mans treasure..." and contradicting your valuation of the car... history has proven you and your valuation wrong... making you look unaware from which direction the wind is blowing from, while your shoes are getting soaked

SEESPOTRUN response:

In the courtroom in Atlanta the prosecution also tried that same tactic. They had a board and posted a series of pictures of a restoration of a 50’s vintage Ferrari race car. They showed every facet of the car and its restoration and a claim of value to what it could be worth when finished. That car was a complete and running car to start with.

Then I got my chance and pulled out my pictures to compare. I showed the sorry rusted out remains of what was once a gorgeous Ferrari race car prior to it being
mangled and reduced to a hacked-up discarded Hulk.

No engine, no useable wiring, no useable lower frame sections, No useable alloy bodywork, no gauges, no door, no monoposto cover, no seat, no switches, no headlights,1 damaged wheel, no drive shaft.

I can go on and on, but just not enough remaining of a car to restore.

This Hulk was so far removed from being a car that the prosecution just sat down.

So here it is….. This car is a one of one 375 Plus with what used to be a special built Scaglietti streamline long nose bodywork. You do NOT go to AutoZone and buy parts for this 1 of 1 special built Plus.

Each part is unique and each part is to be hand made by old world artisans and metal masters.

 

If Kleve was not the owner, who was the owner during the time the car was in Kleve's possession... what allowed Kleve to effect a sale... it was a quiet period during which no one came forward to contest Kleve's claim to the car... allowing for Kleve to be the true owner... to this date no one has filled that gap

FBI cannot repo anything outside US jurisdiction, it becomes a non entity and must follow the "local" laws the same as any other individual doing the same...

spots opinions are just more blather, which is all spot has produced

 

One explanation for the disjunction between Kleve's ownership of #0384 and Guy Anderson's report of the failure of the prosecution in a case of criminal theft is that a finding of "not guilty" does not mean "innocent." A criminal offense consists of elements, usually consisting of a combination of an act and a mental state. The prosecution must prove the existence of each element beyond a reasonable doubt. This is sometimes described as belief "to a moral certainty." The failure to prove the existence of even one element beyond a reasonable doubt requires the jury to enter a finding of not guilty. In the case of a theft, the classic formulation is something like, a taking of property belonging to another, with the specific intent permanently to deprive the other of possession. It appears that the prosecution in Guy's case was unable to prove, to a moral certainty, the existence of the element of "property belonging to another." Without looking it up, I speculate that "abandoned" property fails to satisfy this element. When the criminal offense in question also involves theft of a motor vehicle, the prosecution must also show beyond a reasonable doubt that the property in question fits a statutory (or case law) definition of a motor vehicle. Apparently Guy's prosecutor failed with respect to this element as well.

In other words, it is possible for it to be simultaneously true that Kleve owned #0384 when it was stolen from his land, and that it was not a stolen motor vehicle with respect to the criminal charges that were filed and tried against Guy Anderson.

 

This simple question raises so many issues that it would take more time and energy to answer than I care to give. Here is 15 minutes worth: Ford and Lawson claim they were fraudulently induced to enter into the HOA. Fraudulent inducement is a tort. Torts rely on a "but for" definition of actual causation: but for defendant's words or deeds, the claimants would not have incurred the injury from which they now seek relief. Liability does not arise from every actual cause. Liability arises only from injuries that were proximately caused by the plaintiff. A defendant has proximately caused an injury if it was reasonably foreseeable that his/her conduct would actually cause that injury.

OK, so claimants who can show actual causation are entitled to relief from all proximately caused injuries. The form of relief is called compensatory damages. This is defined as the amount of money that the trier of fact (the jury) finds to be sufficient to put the claimants in as good a position as they would have been, but for the defendant's words or deeds.

The status quo ante for Ford and Lawson, prior to signing the HOA in March 2013, was that they owned a pending litigation claim to ownership of the components that are included in the bitsa #0384, and which were formerly in the possession of Karl Kleve. Success on this claim would require them to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the various post-theft transactions that Karl Kleve entered into with respect to ownership of these components were void or voidable. I tend to doubt that a finding in their favor on this issue would have resulted in an injunction that Florence Swaters must return these components. Rather, I think the judgment would be for money damages only. The measure of these damages would be determined by expert opinion evidence, and would be decided by a jury. The amount is so uncertain as to be imponderable. But this is the value of what Ford and Lawson owned in March 2013: a pending litigation claim, whose likelihood of success is unknown (but imho not great), resulting in a monetary award of a similarly unknown amount.

When they entered into the HOA, Lawson and Ford agreed to liquidate, waive and release their litigation claim in exchange for a claim to 50% of the auction proceeds. We now know the amount of the auction proceeds. We don't know how much better, or worse, a claim to 50% of the auction proceeds is, than the value of the liquidated litigation claims. But this would be the measure of damages for the tort of fraud in the inducement.

I have gone past the 15-minute mark, and this post is not very comprehensive or conclusive. We also need to take into account the Ford contention that Swaters's fraud in the inducement caused him to incur an additional injury. This was an injury to his personal, idiosyncratic value, of a situation where either an auction sale took place in September 2013, or the Ohio parts would be returned to Ohio and the Lawson-Ford litigation claim to ownership of the Kleve components included in the bitsa #0384 would be revived, as if they had never been the subject of an SAR. The dollar amount of an alleged injury, consisting of the negation of the ability to litigate a claim of imponderable merit, is similarly imponderable. Imho, in nine trials out of ten of this alleged injury, a jury would find the entire claim to be pretextual, fabricated by Joe Ford and his pathetic attorneys Rinear and Smith solely to serve their perceived litigation interests.

We also need to take into account the fact that the HOA is an SAR, and that the trial court with jurisdiction over the Swaters v. Ford & Lawson case entered an order over Ford and Lawson's objection, that the HOA is a binding settlement of Ford and Lawson's litigation claims. At least two important results arise from the status of the HOA as an SAR. One arises from the fact that the theory of the Ford-Lawson claim of fraud in the inducement is that Swaters did not disclose a piece of information to Ford and Lawson which, if known, would have caused them not to enter into the HOA. That is, it was a fraud of concealment rather than of affirmative representation. In order to be actionable, a fraud of concealment must consist of failing to share information that the knowing party had a duty to disclose to the ignorant party. In litigation, parties are generally not under a duty to share any non-evidentiary information with the other side -- e.g., information about litigation strategy -- including information that they know would cause the other side to behave differently if they knew the truth.

The other thing is that the HOA was construed by the court as an SAR and a final judgment was entered. This implicates the whole Rule 60(B) problem, that there is a drop-dead one-year statute running against a motion to set aside an order on the ground of fraud on a party. Ford and Lawson are attempting to end-run that limitation, with their attorneys braying repeatedly to the Court of Appeals that every representation made by Swaters to the Court subsequent to March 2013 constituted a fraud on the court, because she did not share with the court the exchange of emails with Bonhams, that a September 2013 auction should be postponed if it would increase the proceeds to do so.

OK that's it for now. Just a partial answer to your simple question. It would be great if Ford and his pathetic attorneys Smith and Rinear would actually do some legal research and briefing instead of using every court appearance to bray like donkeys about fraud, theft, and lies. But that's not how they roll, I guess, and we can't make them change.

 

Oh entirely agree with you Cheesey, Chris Gardner and his cohorts have already attempted to argue that Kimberly never sold the car to Karl Kleve for which their only evidence is that the Bill of sale between the parties was flawed in various ways. See

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143186187-post1136.html

But then this was in the same vein as our esteemed colleagues claiming that there was never any #0384AM and/or all the other BS. It doesn't seem to bother the poster that he can claim that Karl Kleve didn't own #0384AM and yet if Karl Kleve didn't buy it, don't you think at least one Kimberly heir would be all over this like a rash?

Well?

 

The Ocean Joe cheering section has been reduced to Timmmmy and Cheesy. The other believers have dropped out. It’s great to see Ocean Joe and SeeSpotRun dancing the legal tango with 4 left feet. What has emerged is the fake Kleve Ohio title. It clears the way for Wexner to secure the first legitimate US title when Copley does the transfer to him, collects the $1.5M in sales tax, pays the 2.7% duty and has the car inspected for the first time by law enforcement officials in the great state of Ohio. From reading the Ohio Title Law, the Wexner Title will be based on nothing from the Kleve past, it will be an entirely new Public Document .

In valuations, go ahead and accurately include a running 1955 750 Monza sale for $300,000 at the Brooks Auction in 1988, and the Ralph Lauren 375 Plus for under $500,000 a year earlier is now . At the time, even a 121 LM was less than $800,000. You mentioned #4757 for $1.6 M , a driving GTO, so figure the percentage difference on a carcass hulk, rotten in a field with no drivetrain – which is what Kleve theft was .

In the FBI transcripts of the trial in Atlanta ( I have read them), the experts where clearly asked the value. It was said from most $150,000. Kleve it was always multiple millions, of course that’s fair, and honest of him to value his hulk at a billion if he wanted to. But, in real time terms it could have well been $100,000 considering the stink on the car at that time, Kruch panicking, ‘’Christian Faucompre ’’ , South American mafia, the french man lurking, etc. Swaters the only guy to stand up to an already messy deal – on conditions. He took it once it was settled with the authorities, not before. Messy deals do have rewards if you clean the mess legally and by paying. He did both , and that continued.

But since when does a messy stand in the way of obtaining a 375 Plus at a discount? Add stink, and the price drops. Les Wexner sure did the same thing at the auction, knowing well that the ‘’Joe Ford kiss of death’’ was on the car before, during and after the auction. Les Wexner would have paid more we are all sure, as money means nothing to him. After all, who would buy a car at a public auction knowing all he knew in advance without seeing the car 3 hours before the auction, and without his own Ohio law firm walking 800 feet to the BMV to pull the file and review as you do when you spend $18,000,000 after following Fchat daily for 10 months before the sale? Les sent his ‘’man’’ to the auction where he knew he was safe to buy it for a discount, a big one. That discount was solely because of the Ford stink. Lawson and Ford both made this sale messy and Les Wexner got the benefit.

With any messy deal, the guy buying cleans up the mess and is rewarded. Swaters knew that. Les knew that. We all know that. As the price went up after 1989 , Kleve came back to the table with a new story – communicated with Swaters with all his own wits and savy, and Swaters settled with the Kleve Klan up to the end. Maybe not perfectly, but issuing official cashiers checks that were endorsed by Kleve was no less than good faith from Swaters.

Does anyone think Swaters would pay out $625,000 to an official Kleve agent with evidence that the checks were cashed by Kleve. Again, it was a messy deal and it is clear that many of the agents, lawyers and middlemen were all self-dealing and still are today as there are a few Ford cheerleading promoting further fraud that has now been called out by other board members.

The new issue is all the Ohio Titles which have finally been confirmed to be fraud. There’s that pesky ‘’F’’ word again. So, Lawson signs an agreement with Gardner and Swaters to settle this matter, and surrenders her ‘’rights’’ in, and passes a fraudulent Ohio title as part of her goodwill endorsed by Ford . Ok, I get it now. Goodbye real estate holdings in Cincinnati .

Back to values, and Timmmmmmmmy. Your post puts you in the cheering section front row with Ocean Joe. You scatter Five post -1989 Kleve Ferrari values to prove a point, but you hide the real numbers affirmed in the 1989 trial by the experts. Please have your ‘’master’’ post the entire Atlanta trial transcript ! We all can see the values declared in court by the experts at the time. Throwing confusing information on the value, mixing it up to make it hold water is just a scattering , Ford style. Your post are much like Ocean Joe -the Licensed Lawyer.
Reading the ‘’In the Courts’’ on the ‘’The Other Fchat Site ’’ I saw this :

From: Joseph Ford
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:35 AM
To: Christopher Gardner
Subject: Print These Out and Do A Side by Side Analysis
An attorney trick when you want to hide a doc, especially a damaging multi-page doc, is to separate the pages and then scatter them among the hundreds of docs.
Joe
--


Timmmmy are you Ocean Joe? Come on, I dare you to tell us. That’s a double contingent dare Timmmmy.

LOL, IMHO ................ha !

The post of the month is : ‘’ I'm not the kinda guy you cheat, in a contract, or in a court...but I know a guy who can teach you.’’

 

Why would Gardner challenge Karl Kleve's ownership claim? Gardner's only claim to ownership depends entirely on Kleve's claim. How would it serve Gardner's interest to deny that Kleve ever had an interest?

 

+1

It is easy to forget that Gardner and OJ used to be partners and had the same commonality of interest and objectives. It is interesting to read OJ's posts in 2013, post Revival Auction, as they illustrate a change in attitude to a later auction and a course of destruction after Gardiner issued legal proceedings to defend his position.

K

The real motivation for cancelling the POA's is made clear.

"SO" I cancelled my Power of Attorney

 

Kim, you are too blinded by your bias to see the logic. Prior to the execution of the HOA, Gardner had made no public challenge to the claims of Ford and Lawson, that they owned 100% of Karl Kleve's claims to ownership of #0384. Also prior to the HOA, Ford and Lawson were "winning" the litigation of their claim that Florence Swaters had no ownership interest. When Ford and Lawson signed the HOA, they agreed to release this winning claim to sole ownership, in exchange for 50% of the proceeds of an auction sale. (Gardner also agreed, by implication, that he could come away with no more than 50% of the auction proceeds.) Immediately after the September 2013 Goodwood auction came and went with no sale of #0384, Ford continued to maintain that 50% of a future sale was superior to the reinstatement of his winning litigation claims to 100%. Only when Gardner went public with a claim to 100% of whatever share Ford and Lawson did end up with, did Ford decide to reinstate the litigation, to try maximize the size of that share.

In other words, Ford's response to Gardner's all-new post-Goodwood threat was to throw out the certainty of a 50% payday, and to choose instead to devote an unknown number of years, and an unknown number of dollars (recently represented to be $200,000 and counting), to an effort to maximize the value of the thing that Gardner had suddenly and unexpectedly claimed to belong to Gardner alone.

If you take off the bias blinders it makes perfect sense. Doesn't it?

 

Kimbill,

Why do you choose to ignore the key sentence? (Because your analysis fails if you don't LOL.)

The 50/50 split was for a payday in six months. That date came and went.

We tried to work NEW TERMS out, one scenario being PRIVATE SALE (no Bonhams). We failed. Game on in A1001370 as we argued when we appealed the Aug 19, Order. Back then I saw the HOA fading away and I sought mediation, new split 60/40, etc, yes, way back then.

So KimBill, you are both speaking out of ignorance -- It's not new to us, only to you two. Remember, the parties never reached the HOA's second agreement per para 2, you know, the one we agreed to "enter an agreement" as to the Ohio case, so it (A1001370) should never have been stayed nor dismissed.

Gardner filed suot when he should'a arbitrated. Game on in A1306451 - finally, referred to arbitration.

The others then tried to bully us into a later auction. Sorry. We did not agree.

Always go where the evidence takes you - if you ignore a sentence as your prior posts indicate (ignoring the sentence above), your "analysis" is a matter of garbage in, garbage out.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Joe

*

 

Bill, I am confused as I agree with you and your post makes perfect sense to me. Does that make us both biased or have I misunderstood your interpretation of my post ?

The 50% OC share was indeed accepted by all although OJ has stated that he felt short changed by Gardner for settling at less than 80%. However the split between the parties appears to be in dispute from the start. OJ put Gardiner in default for not paying the legal fees ad infinitum and was redesignating Gardners payments by Morse as a loan prior the Gardner upping his claim to 100% of the share. The arbitration will sort that one out and I am certainly not making a claim as to which of the OC parties holds the moral high ground.

 

Bill, have you considered the various scenarios that would arise out of the arbitration finding given that there will still be litigation between Gardner and Ford in London ?

A. If Gardner gets nothing

B. If Ford gets nothing

 

Bilk-'Em: My "analysis" is unaffected by your latest spin. Taking at face value the two September 2013 posts that Kimbill quoted, you had a guaranteed 50/50 payday from a future auction, Gardner filed suit seeking 100% of your 50%, and you responded by negating the 50/50 payday in favor of spending years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a speculative effort to win an even bigger prize for Gardner to take aim at. Taking your words at face value is something I would recommend to no one. But this is literally the logic of the two September 2013 posts that Kimbill quoted.

Now you are revising your words, saying that if your efforts to extort a larger cut had been successful a future auction would have been no problem. You are also rewriting the brief you filed in the appeal from Judge Nadel's August 2013 order to dismiss. what you actually represented to the Court of Appeals is that the HOA continued to be in effect and controlling in that post-September 2013 timeframe, such that its forum selection clause precluded Judge Nadel from dismissing the Swaters v. Lawson & Ford case. You are also rewriting history with respect to Gardner seeking to compel arbitration of his claims against you. As I read the docket in the Gardner v. Ford & Lawson case, it is *you* who has fought Gardner's efforts to compel the arbitration. Also, Gardner could not prosecute his claims against Lawson in the absence of an Ohio civil suit.

But as I said, taking your words at face value is something I would recommend to no one.

 

Joe, we are all just theorising on the outcome and as it stands today, that will be decided by a man in a powdered wig in London and if that happens, I will be happy to sit in the public gallery as the FChat reporter

 

I agree Kim.
Also I belive things have grown very personal between some on this thread.
None of this rests in our hands.
Let's wait and see and dial down some of the personal comments.

 

I will keep it short and sweet
I aint Joe, I am me, I dont even live in the USA like most posters on this thread nor Switzerland, like Chris and all the fakes so there goes that theory.

Quoting figures after 1989 is only as fake as quoting figures pre 1989. Just in case you missed the memo the car sold in 1989, via a crooked Belgian importer to Jacques Swaters after everyone else passed. Why did they pass, well it was stolen and who wants to buy a stolen car.

I believe the car was worth more than the $2k that Seespotrun claimed it was worth as a car. As shown in this link the car was offered for approximately US$1 million during 1989 http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/141686350-post627.html and consider the the restored #0384AM would have been worth at least US$5 million by mid 1990 and the restoration would have cost maybe $500k max it would have been great value. Except for one little thing. And maybe that is what he is referring to, even though he kind of claims it was saved not stolen. I am confused on that point.

IT WAS STOLEN.

As A STOLEN CAR it was only worth a nominal value for someone worth taking a risk that it wasn't going to be seized and too this day is still only worth that. Mr. Swaters knew that with his political clout no Belgian court would agree to doing anything and so he was happy to eventually pay Mr. Kruch circa $4500 for the car. I assume you know that the Belgian police impounded the car and then released it without any further action. Is that not what happened? When something gets stolen from you, yes I agree the thief can offer to compensate and you as the victim can choose to relinquish that right but Karl Kleve never did relinquish that right....... Can we all agree that Mr. Kleve had the right to refuse the compensation and retain his claim to the car? Because to do otherwise needs us to consider what we would do if our own property was stolen. And excuse the rambling but why do so many posters have to claim that KK was a mental patient or otherwise denigrate him in that manner, we can't actually know that and it is really very crass.

Finally Mr. Reproman, you have posted an email between Mr. Gardner and Mr. Ford, one would assume either because one of those people likes to share their personal emails or because YOU are Mr. Gardner.

Again please entertain us by not letting facts stand in the way of a good story.

 

All this backward and forward argument seems to go nowhere.

Can someone please supply us with a timetable of any possible future resolution so that I know when to come back and catch up.

Meanwhile, the only person that so far seems to have come out of this affair with a profit is Mark Daniels, who no-one seems to want to pursue.

Can anyone explain that please.

 

Bill

This may help you see that your analysis is garbage.

Bonhams refused for many weeks to answer my question of whether it could make the Sept. 14, 2013 auction. Now we know why. IMHO Bonhams was completely dishonest.

Note what I wanted if Bonhams could not make the auction. It is in black and white. Parts back to Ohio. New ballgame. HOA expired - all of its terms, not only the terms you don't like. Got it?

There is more. Also, the HOA arrived on 2013.03.20 already signed by Bonhams, after which we signed. I think it is safe to say Bonhams signed on the 20th.

The Ford position has been consistent, and still is.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Anyone who remains unclear on what Joe Ford defines as consistency only needs to compare this post from September 22, 2013 -- the one quoted by Kimbill on the previous page -- and Joe Ford's August 26, 2013 email, that he just attached and that is attached again below:

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

and as to post 2945:

Zanotti, after getting only half of what he was promised, almost tripled what Daniels got.

That makes two who IMHO had zero right to any $, now have $1,500,000ish and $625,000 (1999 dollars). (In truth, Zanotti may have some legal headaches in London.)

That is pretty funny.

(Swaters did have his Swiss attorney JPL email Daniels back and forth, who basically stringed them along until they quit.)

and as to post 2947:

Oh Bill, What do you think the line "Some of the parties are still filing motions in Ohio to resolve loose ends" means? Post those motions.
Obvioulsy I was too optimistic as to a resolution. That should be obvious even for those far away seats in CA.

J

 

Dear Cheezy,

It was May 1988 and the State of Ohio issued an order to remove the Kleve junks. Kleve had abandoned many rotting automotive remains in the elements for years.

The Courts ordered Kleve’s junk to be impounded making the State of Ohio the new owner of the Kleve Debris.

The residents of Cincinnati, Ohio had enough of Karl Kleve and his disgusting junk yard.

The Court Order would have included the remains of an unidentified and abandoned Grand Prix racer.

The destruction of that item was prevented by a 24 year old ex- Ohio resident. That person saved the Grand Prix remains from almost certain destruction.

When that individual was on the witness stand, he testified that he did not think he did anything wrong, He also said that no one did anything wrong.

The jury listened closely as the witness told how he lied to the FBI about the use of the word stolen.

The Jury knew no one steals junk like this for any reason.

FYI: The FBI, in conjunction with other agencies, can seize cars abroad with no problem.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Were you on the jury?

AND in conjunction is the operative term, I don't get the feeling that the Belgian authorities wanted to co-operate with the FBI