375+ # 0384

In some states a good faith purchaser can demand that the true owner pay the good faith purchaser pay what was paid to retrieve is property. This is especially true where there is no title.

 

Let’s look at the stolen issue.
Item #1

We hillbillies here in the Deep South did not buy a Hulk in Ohio.
We bought a Hulk in Georgia as a ‘Good Faith’ purchase.

When the FBI stated the Hulk was stolen, I stated to the FBI that it was not listed by the GTPD as being stolen. That was certified on the FBI transcription of events.

I asked for proof that the Hulk was listed as stolen and proof of ownership thru my attorney.

The FBI could not provide it, the prosecution could not provide it, and Kleve could not provide it.

On page 132 post# 2637, Ocean Joe posts an FBI document that he claims went to Interpol and was logged in NCIC. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

NOTE: The FBI may be activated when they suspect an interstate crime has been committed, otherwise it is a State matter. . The NCIC information must come from the issuing Police agency.

OJ says in his post # 2637:

I will do one better, I will post the FBI report that amended all NCIC database entries and also went to Interpol.


So here is what the document actually says:

1) It is an unclassified Interoffice Memo and that is all it is.

2) The document refers to the description as; “UNSUBSTANCIATED theft of 1955 Ferrari 4.9 Grand Prix racer. (Line #4)

3) The info was sent from Cincinnati to Atlanta via ITSC (Interstate telecommunications service provider) with copies sent to Detroit, Houston, and Los Angeles.

(LA is where the VIN plate resided prior to its recovery by the LA FBI on 3/9/1989)

4) Notice the block out prior to theft on line 10 ……why block out the description of the theft? So let’s see what could it say ‘unsubstantiated theft’, or ‘unconfirmed theft’ or even ‘suspected theft.’


The person named on the bottom page line 18 is Mr. Michael Sheehan. I talked to him a few weeks back to ask permission to post documents with his name on them. Permission was granted.

.5) Notice the value of 100K to 250K on the FBI documents. That is a far cry from the millions that some have stated.

6) Now here is the part that needs pointing out. The FBI, in that memo on line 4 starting with 1989 says: POSSIBLE KTSP (Kentucky State Patrol) matter.

It is as plain as the nose on ones face they did NOT want to get involved when it was discovered the car was not a car but parts of a car. ( Unlike a partially disassembled Kleve description)

7) No way this document went to Interpol or NCIC. That information would be stated in the text. The posting of this document is a dishonest attempt at claiming the Hulk was listed as stolen when in fact it was Not.

This whole ordeal turned out to be an embarrassment to the hard working FBI, the diligent Federal prosecutors, the good people involved in law enforcement and dozens of other agencies that have real crimes to fight.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe, I notice there was a hearing and motion today in the Gardner case against you.

What happened and will there be a transcript ?

 

Repeated attempts to describe a theft as good faith is absurd. This car was very well known and if someone offered me such, I would be suspicious. It wasn't aVW bug for god sakes. Wether Kleve intended to restore it, hot rod it or make it into a coffe table, that's his right to do, no matter how wrong it may seem to you. You are not the judge and decider on that. There are people that abuse there cars while using them, or don't care for them in other ways. There are many cars squirreled away decaying. There is a Testa Rossa in my area that is rotting because the current owner wants more than it's worth. Maybe I should steal it. Or get someone to, and purchase it in good faith.

Perry

 

The hearing was an attempt to finish some remaining discovery issues in trial court case A1306451 and Judge siad he would document discovery as incomplete and let arbitrators take over as arbitrators see fit, with all to report back after arbitration is complete. (I expect a formal order in a few days on the foregoing.)

We await the appelate decision, likely in about 4 weeks.

Arbitration moving along. The arbitration hearing (its private) is set for Aug 4 - 14, 2015 in sunny, sultry Miami.

I did not order a transcript. Maybe opponents will.

Joe

*

 

August!! That's 6 months away. How ridiculous!

 

if property is stolen and later recovered... the original owner is made whole by recovering the stolen property... it is returned without any liens ( resulting from the theft )...

a good faith purchaser recovers his loss from the seller he dealt with... in the event of multiple sales, it is like dominoes, each buyer recovers from their seller... regardless of how many good faith trans actions took place... the initial theft trumps all successive sales...

good faith purchase sounds simple, but in reality is difficult to uphold, there are many detailed elements that must be met

theft has no statue of limitations... it is universal with hundreds of years of cases world wide upholding the ability to recover stolen property

 

You're really struggling with this question here. I thought it was quite simple. Seespotrun, I doubt that you'd ever dodge or deliberately avoid answering a question, would you? Not after the way you give Ocean Joe such a hard time for avoiding answering questions posed to him - if you want to differentiate yourself, please answer these really simple questions.

1. What date was the Hulk removed from Kleve's property in Ohio?

2. What date was the State ordered impound and cleanup of Kleve's property in Ohio?

3. You're good with legal distinctions, you wrote a page on "good faith purchase" - please tell us the difference between impound and seizure.

YOU have made a big deal of the Hulk being destroyed by the State if it hadn't been removed - we know you have the dates asked for above.

Please spare us more lawyer weasel-ease rambling on rather unrelated topics - could you just answer those 3 questions, and those questions only?

You promised to illuminate the real facts of this case for the benefit of Ferrarichat readers - please start with those, and just those.

I have to say, you have been asked those direct questions several times over in the past few days, and you seem to have ignored each request - your credibility is going to suffer very soon if you can't even be bothered to answer such basic factual questions without throwing in multiple paragraphs of interpretation and opinion.

 

Yeah and also a far cry from your not worth $2k or $1k comments that you yourself have posted before.

 

In the last hearing video your attorneys were trying hard to file motions over Morses's car and seek discovery on chassis numbers. Does this mean the Judge rejected this until after the arbitration ?

I am also curious about the timeline and how you see the sequence of events. You have your appeal in four weeks so theoretically you may lose this and be fighting in a London Court before you find out what the arbitration hearing is going to award you as your share of the proceeds.

This is looking like a horse race with no clear favourite except the lawyers

K

 

This is the wonderful aspect of this Forum.

You may voice your opinion and attempt to state your opinion as a fact.

But then BEWARE …you may be asked by another member to make your case and
‘PROVE IT.’

If you have that proof then you should post it.

You say: The car was very well known and I contend it was NOT well known, not even to the Ferrari Historians back in the 80’s.

You say: It wasn’t a VW bug and I concur, since a bug has many more parts than this Hulk had.

You say: I am not the Judge and decider.

No, I am not the Judge or a decider in this case.

The judge was the Honorable Judge Murphy and the deciders were the 12 individuals
(Jurors) who sat in the Jury stand in Atlanta Federal trial 1989. We won that case.

You say: there are many cars squirreled away decaying.

Even a squirrel has the good sense not to leave his nuts outside to rot.

You say: maybe you should steal it, or get someone to, and purchase it in good faith.

Now here is where we part ways.

 

Joe, I have just watched the video posted elsewhere and can now see that the Judge dismissed your motion for contempt/thief/fraud and stayed the case directing your repeated demands for discovery until after the arbitration hearing.

What was very surprising was the opinion the Judge gave at 9:26:28 on the tape regarding what he thought would happen to the case after the arbitration.

"At some point after the fall, I will assume Gardners going to come out of this, I am not sure Ford is still going to be a part of a piece of this litigation between you"

I accept that this is only an opinion but it does suggest that your involvement in the dispute will stop with stop at the arbitration leaving Gardner/Lawson carrying to on. It raises a doubt on the outcome and I think this doubt is confirmed by your attorney when he requests the use of 54b language to support a subsequent appeal.

Otherwise, at 9:22, as directed by the Court, Gardner's attorney states they have provided the VIN for the chassis and the body of the Morse Delahaye. Have you worked out what model type and body these correspond to ?

 

Fair enough, but it still remains that it was STOLEN, no matter how it was kept. I agree, if it was inside it would have faired better, and probably not been stolen. Also, you refer to it as the Hulk. It is more complete than many cars that have been restored.

Fact remains that it was sold, 'in good faith', not disclosed as stolen. Why can't this be returned to the rightful owner it was stolen from, or their heirs?

Perry

 

The 2500 valuation was made by me in a court of law (Atlanta 1989) and if you want to learn what occured then just go back and read.

The 1000 valuation is the price paid by a very well known Ferrari expert and I posted that document for the readers.

The valuation used by the FBI did not come from physical evidence. Had the FBI seen a picture of the Hulk, the 100K-250K valuation would NOT have been listed by the FBI.

No one had pictures of the remains except me in 1989. Therefore, the FBI had to rely on the description of Kleve. You should realize how that went and why.

Had Kleve been truthful and told the FBI he paid 1600 for the complete running car and reduced it to a rusted out frame section, I will assure you the FBI would have sent him back home.

Oh but I forgot, he claimed he paid Kimberly 2500 when he said in court he
paid 1600.

Then Kleve claimed he bought the car from Howard hively in his taped deposition.

Now,what he told us in many interviews was he did not know Kimberly, he heard of Hively, but that was not who he purchased the Grand Prix racer from. He did however say it was a car dealer.

We paid 50,000 for the Hulk and that was considerably more than the Hulk was worth. But just like any project, we were looking to add value when the assessment was made.

Can you explain to the readers why none of the Ferrari experts / race car experts that viewed the hulk ( Tucker,Georgia) would not purchase the Hulk for 50K. There were many that viewed the Hulk prior to my 'Good Faith' purchase.

 

I still find it strange that 2 of the 3 heiresses declined any interest in 0384.

 

Dear Gordon C

In a you-tube deposition Kleve claimed that on 12/26/1988 the Hulk was removed.
That deposition was displayed in this Forum many times, did you not play that deposition?


In the posted newspaper article in the Western hills Press, Kleve was convicted on the junk and nuisance laws of Ohio in May of 1988.


Here is the meaning of impound and the meaning of seize and that they are often one in the same.


1. im•pound/imˈpound/
verb
1. seize and take legal custody of (something, especially a vehicle, goods, or documents) because of an infringement of a law or regulation.
2. shut up (domestic animals) in a pound or enclosure.



1. seize/sēz/
verb
1. take hold of suddenly and forcibly.
2. (of a machine with moving parts or a moving part in a machine) become stuck or jammed.
3. be in legal possession of.
4. fasten or attach (someone or something) to something by binding with turns of rope.

 

it has been returned to Kleve... by several court decrees...

the problem arises that an effort was made to sell the car... the legal side has taken on the look of Abbot and Costello's famous "Who's on first comedy routine"... while the criminal side looks as a kind of shark feeding frenzy, as word of the attempted car sale became known and various elements appeared to take advantage of the situation. as elements of the sale went wrong... instead of buyers walking away, they continued their efforts to consummate the sale... which included discrediting the owner and car by any means imaginable, to maintain their position as purchaser as evidenced by the many posts here. It is about egos and greed of the purchasers to maintain their standing as purchasers

 

To All,

Kleve owned over 50 properties in the Cincinnati area in the 70's - 90's, with his property stored in many different places, some with buildings, some not.

It is a waste of time to not be specific as to which property is at issue.

Note how Guy Anderson already tried to mislead you with photos of an irrelevant property located who knows where.

Guy Anderson, please post the court document you claim condemns or impounds Kleve's Ferrari storage property.

Guy Anderson has members of this board talking about apples and oranges, yet the Ferrari was stored at the peach.

I think Guy Anderson works for / is / was paid by Gardner.

Below are other irrelevant but interesting photos of Ferraris and "poor" storage techniques, none of which are in Ohio.

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

 

it takes deep pockets for a legal campaign, it is possible that they consolidated their interest by appointing a single principle to head the legal campaign to reduce exposure to the expenses or they simply did not see any benefit vs risk to them... initially the car had a very low value, compared to now... seems like a reasonable decision

 

When vehicles are stolen it must not be a secret. There must be a proper and valid Police Report issued with the VIN number, description and title to that property. If that is not accomplished then the Stolen report is not made or listed in the NCIC computer by the Police.
Such is the case of the Stolen Ferrari that was not.

The 45,000 of the 50,000 paid for the Hulk was returned to kleve as stated by Kleve himself.
So I ask you, how can a car be stolen that was ultimately paid for, not once but twice.

Now the same parties are asking for a 3rd time. Tell me when this sad sad story will end. The heirs own no part of the car. Especially since a Fradulent title was used to acquire 625,000 in 1999.

As for your question I would love to see that play out just like you suggested.

The return of rotted frame tubes that had to be removed, the junk alloy front surround that is useless, a radiator, a junk oil tank, and that sad display of remaining parts that has been listed here in this forum.

Send them all back including the meager parts that were sent to Bonhams. Let Kristy Kleve Lawson and her partner OJ put humpty dumpty back together again.

Do you remembed the original motor. Well Kleve discarded it and it now has taken residence in the car built by Ferrari. You guess who will have the only car that Ferrari could certify. Swaters VS Kleve .... this is good stuff.

Oh by the way, who has that spare engine for the Plus that was a part of the article in 1955 sitting next to #0384. Where did that 9000 dollar engine go or did Kleve dispose of that as well.

 

interesting photos Joe,

better get a hold of DFCS to intervene and take custody of those abused cars

where are all the "goody two shoes" when they are needed to rally to prevent abuse to Ferrari cars... where is the outcry...


DFCS not Dept of family and child services, but Dept of Ferrari care services :=) :=)

 

Fair enough, but it still remains that it was STOLEN, no matter how it was kept. I agree, if it was inside it would have faired better, and probably not been stolen. Also, you refer to it as the Hulk. It is more complete than many cars that have been restored.

Fact remains that it was sold, 'in good faith', not disclosed as stolen. Why can't this be returned to the rightful owner it was stolen from, or their heirs?

Perry

 

One has to properly define complete.

What actually survived as to be safe and usable today rather than mere historic rusty expensive paperweights?

Has the new owner got many parts of the original car making up what is drivable today or a virtually new car and a crate full of parts that never survived their 'storage' in Ohio when the dust settles? Or worse still, a virtually new car and no crate of unusable but historic parts.

Let those that have had eyes and hands on 0384 post restoration comment on that.

 

This is more laughable BS from you. I have a car that I keep in an offsite facility that is not entirely secure. I visit it, at best, once every two months right now. If someone wanted the car bad enough it could be long gone before I ever realized it and filed a police report, yet it would still be STOLEN from the very moment it moved from where it currently sits.

I read all these posts but yours are the ones that are currently the most difficult to stomach. Such a shame the evidence (or lack thereof) fell in your favor way back when. Despite your incessant pleadings here the court of public opinion is certainly not being swayed in your favor at the moment.

>8^)
ER

 

If one were to play your game of only posting self-serving claims I would simply state that when one steals anything of value that is not a car it doesn't go on a register but that fact makes it no less stolen. Neither does your NCIC claims, after all you had the only photo's in 1989, so you knew the situation, you knew who's lot it was and you knew you could use a technicality to get away with it. Hell lets through in a few bitter digs at a poor old man suffering from dementia while we are at it. Simple fact is, Karl Kleve or someone else owned it, it was impounded by the state, it was stolen before the impounding (since you had the pictures, one might assume to order) and you then sold it. Sorry saved it, sorry I can't quite keep up with all the BS, and I think I will give up trying to care what your latest claims to innocence are.

But how do you negate the fact that you or your thieves did not have legal rights to possess the car, either the lawful owner or the state did. They had every right to relinquish it but they must choose the legal measure to relinquishing it and approve that measure. Otherwise we could all steal anything and claim this BS.