375+ # 0384

Kim,

Is Chris feeding you questions that you now cut and paste? Honest answer, please.

Please post, for all to see (including my and Copley/Wexner's attorneys), the "Belgium title" to which you refer.

Please post, for all to see (including my and Copley/Wexner's attorneys), the "1990 Court Appointed Belgium ownership document" to which you refer.

Joe

*

 

Hey Joey ~ By the way, it's really me!! I'm not Chris.

I've read everything filed in the Ohio cases, and the Belguim documents.

Ownership of any property, and including all automobiles, is decreed by a Bill of Sale, or in Belgium it's called an "Act de Vente".

In Swaters case, the Belgium High Court recognized Swaters legal ownership and the King’s Royal Court issued a clearance of ownership that was recorded and has also been filed in the procedures in the Ohio Case. This document states that Jacques Swaters IS the owner. No one contested the Belgium Court, including Karl Kleve or Kristie Lawson.

Karl Kleve knew about the 1990 Belgium decree, and was aware of it, but, did nothing to register a contest to it. He could have, but he didn't, because, had no title to the Ferrari in 1990. It wasn't until 1993 that he obtained the first Ohio title ordered by the Court in Ohio. And that title was obtained without the procedures of the local DMV regulations which Karl circumvented by using the local Court by making statements surrendered to that Court in the form of affidavits – those applications that you said you had not read, were not "purged". We’ve all read them on the Other Site.

When the Estate of Jacques Swaters went into Probate, the Ferrari was listed in the Jacques Swaters succession of his Estate in January 2011. The Belgium Probate Court awarded all ownership in the Ferrari to Florence Swaters. The fact of the matter is; all of "Ohio" was aware of the opening of the Swaters Probate in 2011, after Jacques death, but, you and Lawson did nothing to enter the Belgium Court to stake a claim on the estate which clearly listed the Ferrari as an asset passed to Florence Swaters.

When the Swaters Probate Court closed the succession, Florence owned the car. The only thing left for her to do was to affirm this pesky Ohio title that Judge Martin put so eloquently "The Ohio title is a fraud on the people of Ohio, and Joe Ford made it that way".

You nor Lawson did anything to contest the probate or even by using your usual legal way by posting a "Hereby With Declare" in the Court of Ferrari Chat that you or Kristie had an interest in the Belgian Ferrari.

It’s evident you will ignore me and won’t be answering any questions as usual, because....
FYI- the train has already left the platform, and it’s not coming back. Choo - Choo....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Chris,

Why is MBZGurl answering questions posed direct to Enigma Racing?

Swaters has NEVER provided any Belgium High Court (or any Belgian Court) document adjudicating ownership during the years of Ohio litigation. PERIOD. If you disagree, post the document for all to see.

You are mistaken if you think the Belgian Prosecutor's February 14, 1990 document (Swaters' Complaint, Ohio Case A1001370, Exhibit C) did anything other than state that, based on the evidence that Kruch provided, they could find no criminal wrongdoing. THAT IS ALL that Belgian Prosecutorial agency did. Did you notice how that document was altered ??? -- yet another issue in the Ohio Case A1001370.

Phillipe Lancksweert knew the 1989-1990 acquisition documents were b.s. and admitted same when he signed and notarized his 1999 statement that states: "WHEREAS Kleve is the owner of the herein referenced automobile . . . TO WIT FERRARI 375 PLUS serial number : 0384AM." The operative phrase being, as of that 1999 date, that Kleve "IS" the owner. (Ferrari Chat Post p141, #2801)

That is a HUGE admission - just wait until that is brought to the attention of the UK court, if ownership is to be adjudicated in London!

In addition to Lancksweert's admission, FBI documents from the early 1990's show that the prosecutorial effort in 1990 was a sham by that Belgian agency because there was NO INVESTIGATION into the fraudulent export and import documents that fraudulently claimed the exported goods as "car parts" to escape US Customs detection, or the fraudulent import documents that valued it at $4,500 when in fact it was worth over $500,000 when stolen, or the fraudulent Bill of Sale by the "seller" (Guy Anderson) who admits he did not own 0384AM and admits he was NOT a car dealer, facts and documents which any genuine investigation would have taken into account. Those are facts that put any potential purchaser on notice and prevent him from becoming a "bona fides purchaser."

Also, as to any 2010 Belgian Probate Court action, post it. If anything was adjudicated, then Ms. Swaters would certainly have provided it to the Ohio Court Case A1001370 in 2010, ... or 2011, ... or 2012, ... or 2013 . . . if it exists.

At the recent UK hearing, Justice Flaux, who though only just getting started, grasped some (but not ALL) of the flaws with Swaters ownership claims. Justice Flaux, in addressing Swaters claims as articulated by Swaters lawyers, said words to the effect "well, if you really owned it, then why did you agree to give up half its value?"

If ownership litigation is transferred from Ohio to London (I am against that), then I predict Justice Flaux will grasp the other big flaws in Swaters case. I predict Justice's questions will be words to the effect of:

a) Well, if the Belgian agency truly cleared the ownership of 0384AM to Kruch on February 14, 1990, then why did Kruch sell it to Jacques Swaters on March 15, 1990 for only $100,000 or only 1/5th to 1/10th its value? (Months before, according to contemporaneous FBI records, there were buyers interested at $1,000,000, and Ferrari experts who testified that its value was at least $500,000 at the Nov 6-9, 1989 Criminal Trial in Atlanta Federal Court.)

b) If Jacques Swaters truly bought 0384AM for $100,000 on March 15, 1990, then why did Swaters then offer Kleve $85,000 on April 2, 1990?

c) After Kleve refused Swaters' April 2, 1990 offer of $85,000 for 0384AM, why did Swaters then renumber 0384AM to 0394AM, the latter of which is a known counterfeit VIN?

d) Why did Swaters hire a Georgia attorney in 2005 (rather than hire an Ohio attorney) to send a demand letter to Ohio against Kleve's Ohio estate administrator?

e) There is more, much more. That is why the claim of "unclean hands" was raised in Ohio against Swaters. More exists in the motions still pending and now on hold in Ohio Case A1001370.

Joe

*

 

Joe, you are getting paranoid about everyone being Gardner or one of his puppets. I discuss this case with many people including your fan club and the questions you continue to ignore are not new and are prompted from the other site and not Gardner.

Your last post is yet another example of you answering questions with questions, professing game changing information and regurgitating the same old innuendos. The motivation for repeating these same old chestnuts, in advance of the mediation, is blatantly obvious and I can't see Swaters falling for that one twice. IMHO your negotiating position has significantly weakened and you now have the spectre of the arbitration in Florida hanging over your head.

Justice Flaux grasped exactly what has been going on perfectly. The fact is that Kleve appointed an agent and gave him legal authority to complete the 1999 settlement agreement which was drafted and notarised by lawyers. Sweaters paid $625,000 for the U.S. title and that is exactley what he got. If you are going to prove otherwise, then you will need to come up with something more convincing than shouting forgery with an unsigned copy with $3m written on it and a claim that you never got the money without even asking Kleves Agent what happened to it

 

Whoa there Joey!!

I am trying to understand you clearly and follow you on this point.
Who was Karl Kleve’s Ohio Estate Administrator who got this letter from Swater’s Attorney?
If it exist, then Post it.

 

Dear Joey,
Mbzgurl is answering all the questions because I know all the answers. Ha!

 

I want to know, is the current 0384 a recreation, or did they use some/any of the original, Ohio parts if you will, in building this. If I recall, the Ohio parts still exist and that would make car in question a recreation or replica? No?

Perry

 

Kim,

Your logic is flawed because you assume your conclusion before you analyze the evidence.

Because there was never an agreement with Kleve as to the $3,000,000, there was never a need for Kleve to ask where is the money. Would you ask for the money from someone with whom you had no agreement?

Justice Flaux is no fool. Something caused Justice Flaux to sense serious flaws in Swaters' case - likely her willingness to abandon half of her ownership claim. It is no coincidence that settlement negotiations with Swaters began only days after Lawson-Ford filed their 2012.11.16 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the 1999 Document Was Altered After Kleve Signed, which they had threatened to do.

Merely shifting the focus away from the forged documents (as you attempt to do) will not "unforge" them. The forged documents destroy Swaters' case, regardless of where.

In Ohio Case A1001370, Swaters claimed ownership because of a 1999 contract, so the law places the burden of proof on Swaters to produce that contract. If that contract is a forgery, then the ownership claim fails and the stolen Ferrari is still stolen.

Incidentally, in Ohio Case A1001370, Swaters also claimed he had a Power of Attorney that authorized Daniels, but Swaters could not produce the "blue ink original." Swaters only had a copy, and that copy had many "dots" in the upper left hand corner - indicating many staple - restaple - restaple holes. Had Swaters possessed the original, it too would have been analyzed by the expert.

The Lawson-Ford position is that Ohio Case A1001370 is on hold pending UK court determination of HOA validity. This position comes straight from the Ohio Appeals Court decision of March 11, 2015, a decision by which Swaters-Lawson-Ford and Gardner are, and remain, bound.

Joe

*

 

This is the one and only car with serial #0384AM, and it is a 100% real car. It is a RESTORED car.
It was restored by Ferrari specialists in Italy closely associated with Ferrari and overseen by all the internal people at Ferrari SPA. It has never been a recreation or a replica. All of the original parts ie: the Ohio Parts that were once on the car, and were taken off the car in 1986 and the original engine are with the car now, and are re-united, (apart from the motor) are not re-installed. Each piece of the chassis that had to be replaced was because, the car sat in the mud and in the weeds when Karl Kleve was it's custodian. Each part that came off the car during its restoration is numbered and catalogued and is with the car. The original engine is installed in the car, the spare engine was made up of many original 375 parts, and is also with the car.

The Classiche book was started in 2009 and awaits completion either with or without the re-installation of the original parts. A few 0384AM pieces went missing in the early 1960’s.

The missing parts are:
1) the rear body clip
2) the instruments
3) the seats.

The pieces that were stolen in 1986 by Mr. Trout were returned to Karl Kleve via the FBI and Kleve stored them inside. One small section of the rear chassis tube was hacked off by Karl Kleve and maybe it was used as an atomic detonator, a door stop or maybe he tied his dog to it– who knows???

Marcel Massini, the information King of Ferraris, and known for his contributions to many of Les Wexner’s car collection archives, most likely could confirm you more than me. It’s understood that Massini has done an in-depth inspection of the Swaters car and the parts when it was in London, and the information/reports have been available to Wexner on a regular basis. In fact, Marcel owns the Swaters archives. Also, in existent are the Swaters diaries, which were written at the time of the purchase, the restoration and Kleve settlement. I hear Swaters written account of the car is a contribution to his truth in the matter and reflective of the untold story not shared here .....at least not yet. I think RS owns those dairies. As the car sits today, the whole of the original car is alive and well.

Marcel Massini- The Information King » Le Monde Edmond

FYI~
Restoration: Automotive restoration - Automotive restoration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I may be wrong, but 'parts with the car' aren't' the same as the car being made of the same parts as the original 0384. It would seem you could see Wexner's car AND the Ohio remains, correct? So, what is left of the original 0384 isn't in Wexner's car? How is that not a recreation/replica?

 

Can Marcel explain?

 

You know, if you have ever actually owned a tube frame Ferrari, you would know that the oval frame tubes do NOT easily "rot away".........

You forgot the word "oval"...
It's been a feature of Ferraris since early on.....

 

He's compensated to "explain"...

 

Fair enough, can anyone else explain it? It seems I saw where the Ohio parts went with the car Wexner bought. That means Wexners car is a recreation/replica to me.

 

No.

The "Ohio Parts" as referred to here are the bits left in Ohio that were NOT stolen.
From memory, it was the hood still in the trim colors last raced in Bahamas, some wheels, and a riveted gas tank.
They were displayed at the auction in a wire frame suggesting the car's outline.

recall the original engine was with a third party, Swaters purchased in another deal.

So the car "As sits" has the original frame, repaired as able, all new sheet metal, the 'matching numbers' engine.

The rest is Classiche.

The description of replica has merit, but more acurrately the car was "remanufactured", IMO.

 

Hi Perry
This is another very old question. I could point you to the endless bantering about it in this thread years ago. But i think the best answer is Ferrari says its the real deal.

There you have it.

 

What does your crack team of super lawyers have to say about the fact that Swaters' concessions, if any, made in the course of settlement are inadmissible? Evidence that Swaters chose to waive one-half her ownership claim, in exchange for what turned out to be an illusory agreement by Lawson and Ford to do likewise, is inadmissible in court, and cannot be considered sub rosa by the Justice, with respect to the merits of Swaters' claims to 100% ownership. In the unlikely event that you or your attorneys would bother actually to consult controlling law, they could start with Ohio Revised Statutes Chapter 2710. With respect to a UK counterpart, this document -- courtesy of Professor Google -- suggests that the same rule applies in London as well.

 

Bill,

Help me out. The Ohio statute that you cite applies to mediations conducted with mediators, as distinct from settlement negotiations outside of court. Not only do I recall participating in no mediation, but, here, who do you think acted as an impartial mediator?

When you say "crack team of super lawyers" lawyers do you mean a group of super lawyers on crack? LOL

Joe

*

 

Irrespective of the outcome and my own personal views on the matter, it is good to have you back Joe

You take the time to contribute to the forum for the enjoyment of all members.

I take it the judge in London did not place a "gag order".

 

I would not say a little crack cocaine would improve the legal skills of you and your attorneys, but it surely couldn't hurt. My suggestion was that you could start your legal research with the Ohio mediation statute. Your characteristically facile response indicates that you and yours are unfamiliar with the broader rule I cited, that evidence arising in the course of any form of alternative dispute resolution is inadmissible to prove the merits of the participants' substantive claims. As usual 60 seconds with Professor Google provides more authority than you and your team ever bring to the party. Specifically, a 60 second web search was sufficient to find Ohio Rules of Evidence Rule 408. Rule 408 is entitled "Compromise and Offers to Compromise," and it provides as follows:

"Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. . . ."

You seem to be equally unaware of the fact that, if Swaters' agreement to waive 50% of her claim to ownership were admissible to show the lack of merit in that claim, the identical waiver by you and Lawson would be equally admissible to show the lack of merit in your claims as well.

 

Joe, where did you get the impression that somehow Justice Flaux "sensed serious flaws in Swaters' case" ?

I was there, not you, and I can say categorically, that Justice Flaux did not give that impression.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143809970-post3108.html

I can also say that on the basis of what Judge Flaux said the case will not be going back to Ohio so it is irrelevant to keep dragging up references to burdens of proof or pending cases.

To repeat, on the basis of Justice Flaux's review and questioning of your lawyers, his preliminary view was that the 1999 Settlement was a valid document and this was supported by the conclusion of the Swaters forensic report. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise and not Swaters.

This continued and rediculos insistence that Kleves authorised agent and the money paid by Swaters has nothing to do with you is just not creditable and only creates a suspicion that we are only getting half the story.

 

+1

My only explanation is that Joe thinks he can frighten Florence Swaters into giving up more

As a wise man in Ohio once said

THE COURT: 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.

 

That same "wise" man refused to alter the Ohio title listing Ford and Lawson as THE Owners, despite months of pleas by a rival title claimant. Later, that same wise man referred the dispute from his court to arbitration, as Ford had sought for the prior 18 months.

Pay attention to the Orders, as opposed to the occasional opining that carries no weight, especially if the opining relates to documents that have never been tested in adversarial proceedings.

Question:

If a man (or woman) doesn't own the item that he possesses, and its owner wants the item back, is that man (or woman) giving up anything at all?

Joe

*

 

I was killing time and got online to see whatever happened to Karl, and came across this forum and read some very informative posts. Back in either late 1978 or early 1979, I met Karl. I had placed an ad in the Cincinnati Newspaper to sell a 1949 Cadillac Sedan. This was a parts car that I had to support my 1949 Cadillac Convertible that I was working on. Karl responded to the ad and came out to look at the car. He drove up in a $400, late 60's Cadillac, wearing clothes that looked like he bought at Goodwill. He was nice person, somewhat eccentric, and wealth of knowledge concerning cars. He was interested in the car, and told me that I should remove a dozen or so more parts off of it because they were hard to get, and that I could use them for my Convertible. So over the next month or so he stopped by and we chatted, I don't think he had people to talk to. When the day came or him to take the car, I loaned him a tow bar, he punched a hole in his bumper and inserted a ball. I followed him home with flashers. We pulled in behind a two story apartment bldg and I had the shock of my life, there was a early 30's Rolls Full of rusty wheels, a couple of Bentleys and an old Bugatti. No Ferraris, a few 1950's cars and lots of parts spread around. I had waited to cash the check for fear that it would bounce!!

 

Welcome and thanks very much, for your post.

It provides a nice "time stamp" on these proceedings, that he was out and about, lucid...taking care of business.

The Ferrari in question was in a property he used for storage.
One of several, as I understand it.