In the Beginning Part II What occurred in 1989 with regards to the purchase of a 1954 375 Plus #0384 was written on page #142 dated 2/15/2015 post # 2835. This attached story line was supplied as part of the sale of #0384. Now for the back story. The information known about the 375 Plus Ferraris in the 1980s was riddled with inconsistencies and has often resulted in many of the questions posted by the readers. I am posting the 2nd document in its entirety for those that have not read the early information on #0384 and #0394. This information is being posted for a better understanding of what transpired in 1989 with regard to the purchase and restoration of the Ferrari Hulk. These documents were made available by Gerald Roush as part of the Ferrari #0384 Ferrari purchase in Tucker, Georgia in January 1989. This information is courtesy of the late Gerald Roush, founder and editor of the Ferrari Market Letter Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
It really is too much work, with too little to show for it, for anyone to try to keep up with your continuous deceptions. But the truth is that, at the December 2013 hearing on Gardner's motion to reform, your attorneys represented to Judge Martin that the parties to the HOA -- including yourself -- had given Bonhams unilateral authority to receive all certificates of title and other memoranda of ownership; unilateral authority to determine the validity of each; and unilateral authority to decide the appropriate form of title to deliver to the buyer at an auction which was to be held in the future. In short, your attorneys represented that the HOA continued to be effective and controlling in this post-September 2013 timeframe, such that Judge Martin's court was not the appropriate forum to hear Gardner's application. Judge Martin agreed and declined to rule on Gardner's motion to reform. He did not deny the motion, and as I recall Gardner withdrew it after the June 2014 sale was a fait accompli. Judge Martin did no "forensics," nor did he make any other determination of the validity of the fraudulent Ford-Lawson 70-30 title. In any event, where the fact of Kleve's ownership is in question, by definition Gardner's interests are 100% aligned with those of you and Lawson. He only owns what the two of you own. Your suggestion that Seespotrun is Gardner's hireling is absurd and intended to mislead. A lienholder's rights are contingent by definition. They do not ripen into a right to possession of the security -- or in this case to a right to share the proceeds of sale of the security -- until the contingency is met. Your rambling, "double-contingency" in-court statements do not affect the nature and effect of a lien.
If you are trying to push this towards stating that you didn't know if the car you had was #0384AM or #0394AM, fair enough, that is possible. More importantly, whichever serial number it was, it was "taken" from Mr. Karl Kleve' property. Don't think for one second that by 1990, Mr. Swaters didn't know it was #0384AM, after all it said #0384AM on the invoice AND the documents that were in the initial dump given to OJ contained one from Ferrari SPA in 1990 that made it clear that #0384AM was the only applicable serial that could have been in his possession, after all being a Ferrari dealer has some advantage's, I can provide the links to the documents if anyone wants to hate on me......
For the record, see below. Also, Guy Anderson, in the interest of truth seeking, please post for this Ferrari commmunty the emails you got from Bonhams around the date of the below letter. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Hello Timmy, The Ferrari Market Letter article is for information purposes only. Lets confirm this fact here and now. The rusted-out frame had the number #0384 on the frame tube. PERIOD! You use the word taken and I prefer the word removed. Lets look at the financial issue aspect of Project Kleve Kleve was paid 45,000 of the 50,000 dollars paid by us for the Hulk in 1989. That money was not returned to us even after winning the case. Those funds were given to Kleve. In 1997 a bounty Hunter heard about the story on an alleged stolen Ferrari and saw an opportunity to make some cash. He convinced Kleve he could seize, the now restored and beautiful, Ferrari 375 plus . but there was just one hitch #0384 was now #0394 Subsequently, the Bounty Hunter could not seize the vehicle so he did the next best thing. The Bounty Hunter sold Kleves fraudulent title for 225,000 and 400,000 dollars using a POA that Kleve issued to the bounty hunter. Kleve was not paid once but twice. Now, there is an attempt for a 3rd time. It is just that simple. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Guy, post a pic of the 0384AM stamped on the tube. At the 1989 trial, you testified you searched and searched and could find no marking. In Ohio and Florida, we call your present claim lying. The transcript below clearly shows you are now lying to us. Why? Make no difference. Trespassers STOLE property by taking, or removing, or hauling, or carrying, or transporting, or tractor-beaming, or displacing molecularly ... without owner consent. None of that is true, and is contradicted by FBI records. How much did/is Gardner paying you? In the interest of truth seeking, please post for this Ferrari commmunty the emails you got from Bonhams around June 10, 2014. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Ocean Joe here you go again. As you know, the remains of the Ferrari chassis #0384 was x-rayed and the VIN number was verified. You have even posted a letter stating that Swaters knew about the x-ray of the frame. That x-ray was performed by Sabina Airlines in Belgium thru a good friend of mine and a 30 year business associate Mr. Michel Kruch. The result of that x-ray was the number #0384. So, what are you saying now? I have seen how you twist the truth claiming ownership of a vehicle thru a fraudulently acquired Court Ordered title. I have also seen how you have attempted to pass a forged and fraudulent bill of sale as proof that Kleve bought a car from Kimberly. He did not! This is totally dishonest and reprehensible. The Bill of Sale is a blatant attempt to trick the readers and fool the readers. I believe you are drowning in a sea of deception. It has been exposed that the 1989 theft complaint was just that, a complaint. It has been exposed that the 1st theft report for the Ferrari was initiated in 1997 using a fraudulently acquired Court Ordered title. It has been exposed that the Kleve affidavit is a fraudulent document. It has been exposed that the 1958 bill of sale is a forged document. It has been exposed that the car has been paid for; NOT once but twice and yet you continue to cry foul. It has been exposed that you do not own any part of the Ferrari since the original title is the original sin. It has been exposed that you are not an Ohio resident and can not legally be an owner on any Ohio title. It has been exposed that you have lied about being a resident of Ohio using a straw residence that you never lived at. It has been exposed that the Kleve junk piles in Ohio were condemned, seized and crushed. It has been exposed that Kleve was not an engineer, not an atomic scientist, was not a nuclear physicist. It has been exposed that all of the Kleve junks were junk. It has been exposed that a duplicate title was applied for circa 2001 to perpetrate the exact same 1997 stolen car story but that stolen car story was quashed in 1999. The Ferrari has remained NOT stolen since 1999. It still is not listed stolen today. OJ, you no longer will be able to convince anyone that you did not know. I exposed you to the readers for having the Kleve affidavit and you withheld that information from everyone, even when I urged you to come clean. It has been exposed that your own associates will not assist you by posting on your behalf. .
I agree among the bizarre turns of this saga, everyone is trying to get the original participants talk while they are dead and the most recents who were barely born when the theft happened are the most vocals and explain at length what happened ,,when they were not there. Lot of people can tell me what happened when they were not there, but I would always prefer to have testimonies of those who were present. Among those we have G. Anderson, he may have his views and biais, but at least he gives us an angle of what he saw ( to possibly justify what he did). We have other participants and not only they are silent, but it seem no one is interested in their views, unless they have some prohibition to talk..I believe the dealer in Belgium is still alive and so are two other key protagonists whose names are coming up all the time. Would be also interesting to ask the Belgium prosecutor who allegedly accepted to release the remnants after they were stopped by customs. I guess he had a view...
The checks were for 225,000 and 400,000 each that paid Kleve, Daniels and Daniels recovery company. Daniels called me for information on the Kleve car around 1997. He claimed he was from a recovery company and was a private investigator. I refered the matter to Mr. Mandel ( investigator) who found no such information about Mr. Daniels. Under advisement from Mr. Mandel that it appeared to be a scam, I refused to discuss the Kleve affair with Mark Daniels any further. Daniels approached Kleve to recover the newly restored Ferrari. Daniels was instrumental in the 1st listing of a"Stolen report" in 1997 with the GTPD . After listing the 1st stolen report with the (now known) fraudulent 'Court Ordered" title, Mark Daniels went to Italy to seek out the car in 1997 for a seizure. Note Post #4 where Lanksweert and Daniels were introduced in Modena, Italy. The only problem was she ( the Ferrari) was wearing her new ID bracelet and could not be seized with #0384 theft report and bogus title. This project needed re-thinking. Daniels was given full authority by a very powerful document that allowed Daniels to sign for Kleve legally. That document was the P.O.A. resulting in the bogus title being sold and the stolen report being lifted after the 625,000 USD changed hands. Kleve initally paid Daniels to recover the Ferrari but would not tell us how much was paid to Daniels. We pressed Kleve to state how much, but he would not divulge that amount. Kleve and Daniels did a sale of the bogus title and never was the price of 3,000,000.00 dollars mentioned to me at that time. I did see where someone filled in a non signed contract with hand written 3,000,000.00 but that is just more "Urban Legend". Look at the contracts..... who uses a 'Solo Signature Page'? That is such a major con ploy to allow the administrator to connect a totally different contract to the signature page. What a basic No No. No one can argue that Kleve was paid and the deal transpired in 1999. Then the stolen aspect was lifted in 1999 and never put on the Stolen car report since. However, Mr. OJ did contact the GTPD and attempted to re-list to stolen status again in 2010/2011 time frame and that was not going to happen. That card was already played. In 1989, the Ferrari was worth 850,000 to 1,000,000 finished. We projected to pay somewhere in the 150K to 250K range to have the reconstruction performed including engine of #0384 completed using old world artisans. That was only if not successful in relocating the discarded engine. Had the engine been found ( as it was) then that number would have fallen to about 50K-75K to recreate/restore the Ferrari. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Hey Joey, thank you so much for your explanation! I think this board understands now, why you're being sued for the fraud "thingy" on two continents, along with Ms. Lawson. As you do your best to "purge" the truth from this board, I call you out on your fake Ohio Title. There were no challenges to the Ohio Title, once it became clear that it was a false document, partially because, you continued to conceal that from the courts and everyone in the HOA. Had Bonhams seen it, (and not had time to examine it), your back-up trick would have worked with Lawson as a contributor. In any regard, you still pulled a fraud with her. Hence.... your legal fiasco to date. This board is watching it unwind for you now. Since, it was discovered there was no legal Ohio Title and Kleve cheated the court, it's no wonder your interest in this bogus document has turned to zip, nada, nothing. Judge Martin says it in his mumblings...."Ford is out". I am attaching the Gardner v. Ford - Excerpt of Transcript of Report Hearing, Case - A1306451 - dated 11-3-14, pages 3, 4, and 5 of what really happened in Court on the Ferrari title. It's 180 degrees from the lies you tell this board. It's the responsibility of the Ohio State to strike a false public document. No one else has to bother with it now, except Les Wexner, the legal owner. Why he doesn't grab you for a public flogging is likely the same reason he changes original Ferrari colors to red - both defy reasonable common sense. The fact of the matter is, there was not one challenge to that Ohio title. I further agree with Judge Martin on both counts. So there, Joe.... thank you so much for explaining this! Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Chris, When you make a statement, you need to back it up. Simply check the docket and you will see that Mr. Gottesman never withdrew his Motion to Reform, and no subsequent Order withdrew his motion. Thus, it is correct to say, as I did say, that it was overruled. Maybe no one bothered to explain to you the winning argument as to the Ohio title issue -- our argument is that the Ohio title in its present form was the purview of case A1001370, was approved by Gardner's attorney Haas in A1001370, was filed with the Court by Gardner's attorney Haas on May 8, 2012 in A1001370, and finally, was allowed to stand by Judge Nadel in A1001370. If Gardner had a problem with the Ohio title, he had to assert it in A1001370, at which point he would be shot down for already approving it. ITS OVER. As to case A1306451 Orders, you are grasping at straws. Anyone familiar with the proceedings and the resultant Orders can attest that they were against Gardner. Pay attention to the Court's Orders, especially the later ones that come after the Court became more informed over the subsequent months. The order of the Orders, with the last first, is as follows: 2015.03.03 Order Staying ALL the Case, Sending Incomplete Discovery to Arbitration (Ford sought arbitration; now, discovery goes to arb as well) 2015.12.30 Order Granting Lawson's Motion to Compel VIN (against Gardner) 2015.12.10 Order Granting Lawson's Motion to Compel Photo of Delahaye (against Gardner) 2014.12.10 Order Granting Gardner's Motion to Correct Prior Order (attorneys eyes only for certain docs; compelling Gardner comply with Orders of 2014.11.03 and 2014.11.13) 2014.11.13 Order Granting Ford's Motions to Compel Discovery (Gardner MUST produce bank records, Bonhams emails, Zanotti emails, response supplements - against Gardner) 2014.11.06 Order Granting Ford's Motion to Compel Discovery (multiple matters, against Gardner) 2014.09.08 Order Granting Ford's Motion to refer to Arbitration (against Gardner) 2014.08.20 Order Amending Preliminary Injunction (qualifies para 1, 2; eliminates para 3, grants most of what Ford sought) So, I see multiple, sequential defeats for Gardner. And I think it is about to get worse. Remember what I said at Cavallino about business hats. Joe *
Joey~ First all, let's get something straight right now. In your mind, you think I am Chris. I am not. You think everyone is Chris, even when you look in the mirror, you think you are Chris! Your dream in life was to be Chris. STOP! This is utter nonsense. You know who I am. You've known me for years, dating back to the 600 deal you ripped me off for. REMEMBER? But, listen ... We are not Chris. We are other people on this Chat site who are calling you out on your fraud. It's so obvious! And for those who need to know, I dealt with you when you were Chris' lawyer selling off his assets. We dealt, I have your emails. Answer the questions, and don't squirm.....JUST ANSWER!!! Now, I ask you not to ignore this! Post the picture of 0394AM. That's a "9" not an 8. We all know that post-theft 1988, there was historical mis-information on 0394AM being the Kimberly car affirmed as 0384AM. So, in our minds, it's easy to mention both numbers when Swaters bought the car in 1990, after the court release and the payment to Kleve of the $45,000 ie: FBI report #2 ( purged from your info, along with much more). I have a copy of the FBI report. (To huge to attach here.) In the last 10 posts, the two drivers of this thread are both neck in neck, but, looks to me like...you... Joey are losing terribly. So, it's the right time to ask Ocean Joe a simple request, now that the Ohio Title is a known fraud. Joey....Let's hear the rest of your scam now, without purging... Joey, your entire farce has been the 0394AM, re-numbering by Swaters! Provide this board with every one of the following. It's important to show the truth. 1. Show one photo of the 0394AM stamping on the frame, or Vin plate. 2. Show one Swaters document, official or other, with the 0394AM number. 3. Post the Belgian court documents with one mention of 0394AM. 4. Post the 1994 FIA historic document showing which number was on the car, and all the entries for each race it did, pre-1999. 5. Post one FBI document saying anyone saw 0394AM stamped on the Swaters Ferrari chassis. If you ignore this post... That's answer enough.
A bold view given the judges comments at the hearing on the 20th January 2015: THE COURT: But as I looked at it at the time, I didn't see a whole lot -- your client -- if I had a view from this thing, I would say Ford's in over -- if I had to draw a conclusion about his case solely on these documents, I would say Ford's in over his head; he's making a play that he doesn't really know how to make; this is a big -- his big score; as opposed to just taking a piece, Ford's trying to parlay this whole thing into the big score he's dreamed of his entire life. Otherwise, have you identified what model type and body for the Delahaye based on the VIN you have been given ?
Hi Chris. Losing track of the lies already? Ever heard the expression "There is only one version of the truth?" Let me refresh your (her) recall about what you (she) said about me on August 30, 2013, p46, post 915: "No. I don’t know him [Joe Ford]. I only read about him on the internet. . ." So now you expect all to believe what your post on p154, post 3062, when you say you have "dealt" with me, or that you "have my emails", or, etc. -- you have NO credibility, and you are literally parroting Gardner's spurious claims. Maybe you are not Chris, but I doubt it. Somebody posted a mugshot of a Cynthia Decamp. Is that you -- the female who claims she owns other people's cars, such as that burned out 300SL? You got busted for that too, remember? (Page 47, post 922) -- you have no credibility. <removed by Mod> My claim is that the car is, and always was, 0384AM, and that Swaters claimed it was 0394AM to prevent confiscation because it was a stolen car. After the TWO Cavallino articles identified it (with photos) as 0394AM, and after others (Keith Bluemel) captioned their articles about Swaters as having 0394AM, Swaters admitted under oath in 2010 that he "misidentified" it as 0394AM. So, you should be asking the Swaters camp to post the photos to back up his claim. The Judge's views change over time, and what matters is what he puts in his Orders. As to the blue Delahaye, yes, we have its VIN, its tag number, and its carte gris - and it is a sedan, and not the promised Figoni bodied coupe. When that "disclosure" proved to be a fraud, yet another fraud was attempted using an engine type number as a chassis number. It is only a matter of time now. He has lost all credibility and made misrepresentations. Joe *
Yeah, because your actual name its, its, umm, Mona or Cynthia or Chris well actually who are you? Whats great about this very thread provides some interesting facts regarding stuff you posted... Especially these two http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142535616-post858.html http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142540211-post916.html And where did you go between August 31st 2013 and December 10th 2014. Most passionate posters such as myself, Enigma Racing, Ocean Joe et al, on both sides of the argument, post continuously at least weekly since the beginning whereas there have been many interesting characters that have suddenly posted screeds of very detailed, information and then poof, disappeared. And they all have very detailed sources like you, which must be impeccable, do you still talk to the attorney upstairs, as posted here; http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142539776-post909.html I may well need a free lawyer friend, you could pass on her details to me. Btw, I want to bring back Flobert and some of the other fun posters..... One could go on but I guess its best not to get bogged down in who said what, or to whom or anything really. And either way it provides lots of laughs to all of us.
The Ohio appeal decision just came out. Ford and Lawson won their appeal. Case A1001370 claims are reinstated, now stayed, and should not have been dismissed. The contempt orders are vacated as they were unlawfully issued as well since the underlying order was unlawful. I think it means Swaters should have signed our proposed April 18, 2013 stay, and her refusal to do so was a breach of the HOA, which of course is something we argue in London, after we first argue fraud in the inducement. Joe *
Joe, can you elaborate on what happens now. Does this mean that the case is stayed simply to cover the eventuality that you overturn the HOA in a London Court which puts everything back to square one ? I assume this means that the Bonhams writ for direction that the HOA remained valid after the 2013 sale still needs to decided first in order to resolve the Wexner chain for rescission of the contract. I have also asked you for a likely timeline on the litigation as it strikes me you may be fighting a case in London before your arbitration in Florida has determined how much you will get from the proceeds Very confusing and as Judge Martin said, this case may outlive all of us
By now your friend The Board knows that whenever you write about a document, while you withhold a copy of the document, your intent is to deceive. Why don't you post a copy of the opinion? Regarding the contempt convictions, it remains the case that you and Lawson did intentionally violate an existing court order, and that you were convicted of contempt. It also remains the case that there is no reason to believe that the High Court in London would not have entered the same orders to effectuate the HOA, and that it would not have found you and Lawson in contempt for your violations of those orders. If this is a win in your book, put it on the mantel and enjoy it. Decent people would be ashamed to have been convicted of contempt of court. You tout it as a great victory.
Regarding the stay of proceedings in Ohio, what happened to your representations that the Court of Appeal was drawing a line between litigation of "ownership" claims, which remain within the jurisdiction of the Ohio courts, and "HOA" claims, which go to London? Was this another of your false representations? Is this why you're withholding a copy of the Court of Appeals opinion?
Regarding your fraud in the inducement attack on the HOA, what is the benefit of transferring this to London, rather than have it go forward as a Rule 60(B) motion in Ohio? If your fraud claim depends on the theory that Swaters concealed from you her side agreement with Bonhams that the sale in September 2013 should be postponed, if to do so would maximize the proceeds of sale, then the law would require you to show that Swaters had a duty to disclose this to you. In the context of litigation, generally the parties are not obligated to share litigation strategies with their opponents. This is particularly the case with respect to settlement negotiations, where the basic rule of the road is that parties overtly intend to persuade their opponents to make decisions that are objectively disadvantageous to them. Although I know you and your attorneys never actually do any legal research, I wonder if someone on your side might have inadvertently stumbled across some relevant legal authority. In particular, is there an advantage, or a detriment, to have to litigate this claim in London, as opposed to the Rule 60(B) motion that you unsuccessfully attempted to bring in Ohio? There is also the issue of the remedy, if you are successful in persuading the London court to negate the HOA for fraud in the inducement. You have represented in FChat that there was a premium value on the relative benefits of receiving the proceeds of a sale which took place in September 2013, and receiving the proceeds of a sale which took place nine months later, in June 2014. As someone has pointed out, in fact the estimated value of the car in September 2013 was significantly less than the hammer price in June 2014, such that you cannot claim damages for a monetary loss. With respect to the loss of nine months of your precious time (as an unemployed attorney-architect), during which you, in your ideal world, would have spent "winning" the Ohio case, it has now been seven months since you discovered the blockbuster game-changing emails. Yet as of today your Rule 60(B) motion is stayed and your fraud in the inducement theory has not yet -- I presume -- even been put before a London court. It would seem inevitable that something in excess of nine months will have passed by the time you get a that blockbuster game-changing ruling. This doesn't smell like victory to me. But then again I have always correctly recognized your idiosyncratic valuation of nine months delay to be another of the unbroken line of false pretexts comprising your litigation claims.
If you are here only to repeatedly assault someone's character isn't it a bit disingenuous to cry foul when that favor is returned? Keep in mind, I'm still not a Joe Ford fan, but your post is pretty silly with all things considered. >8^) ER
You still refuse to answer questions! All you write is nothing more than diversion. Nothing is backed up by you with any truth. We all see it now, your con game. These are the issues: 1. THE JOE FORD NUMBER GAME 0394AM: Swaters never claimed the car was 0394AM. He only went through research on the 0394AM number, a number that was associated with 0384AM ....pre -Swaters. You have nothing to support your lie that he, or anyone renumbered his Ferrari. Simply, because, he didn't, and it never happened. No one renumbered anything. There is zero, zip, nada evidence of that. You fabricated that story. You cannot post one shred of evidence, because, none exist. 2. THE FRAUDULENT OHIO TITLE: Your Ohio Title is a forgery, as proven in Court on your own admission. It's a null document that is now a crime on Les Wexner, a resident of Ohio. Judge Martin let it remain a crime on the People of Ohio after he called it out on you in November 2013. You lied to the Court, your application for the Title is fraudulent....Now, it's namely a crime on Wexner, and Ohio holds that blame. The Judge failed to apply the law. Your name on that document makes it a false document, and each application for a Title since 1993, were all false statements, striking the validity of that Ohio Title. 3. MARK DANIELS: No one has discussed Mark Daniels, or contacted him. I will now. You made no mention about him or how he paid Kristine Lawson and Karl Kleve, and what was done with Swaters money. We just have to follow the money. Kleve was unemployed at the time, and Kristine was in Florida, 2 blocks away from Daniels office.
