I believe that your absolutely correct that unless someone coughs up the irrefutable silver bullet in London then whatever ruling happens there will only be another step in the process. As you stated recently, how London's ruling will/can be transferred directly to Ohio jurisdiction is likely problematic unless the losing side capitulates. It strikes me that if the irrefutable silver bullet already existed then it would have been used long ago in Ohio to settle this.
There is a thread on 0846 elsewhere -- let's keep discussion of it there. This thread is on 0384 and ONLY things relevant to that should be posted here.
Hello Kim, Please know that the strong words I voice in this post are directed towards Jacques Swaters and others involved in this case. They have nothing to do with you and I hope that I can convey that clearly. As always, thank you for your contributions to the thread and a special thanks for your coverage of the court proceedings now under way in London. Best Regards, Dave That is not correct. I was told in no uncertain terms in August of 1990; How many 375 Plus chassis Ferrari constructed. How many 375 Plus chassis were accounted for. How Jacques Swaters was using the ruse of claiming 'his' 375 Plus was 0394 to hide the fact that the car he possessed was in fact Karl Kleve's stolen 0384. This was presented to me as fact in August of 1990 in Cincinnati, Ohio at the time I became party to the recovery efforts underway on Mr. Kleve's property. This was explained to me along with the fact that the theft of 0384 was a criminal case with the FBI. None of this information came to me from Karl Kleve. It is simply a matter of fact that after the car was stolen, Jacques Swaters- and whomever else he used as intermediaries- engaged in an elaborate deceit including but not limited to the 'renumbering' of the car in order to deprive Karl Kleve of his property, the aforementioned Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. A deceit, I may add, that continues to this day. Karl Kleve was an easy target. Dave and his gang of thieves from Oxford, Ohio didn't need a truck of their own, they could rent one. They didn't need to break into a building, they could park in the back lot of the apartments next door, walk onto Karl Kleve's land and take what they came for: 0384. Once the car left Atlanta and made its way to Belgium, all Swaters had to do was hold an old man with dementia at bay and bide his time. Despicable. He sure was, wasn't he. Philippe Lancksweert writes a letter, says he's overseas with your stolen Ferrari, You won't be getting it back, he says, but here's what he's going to do for you (see letter attached in Kim's post) here http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143981989-post3369.html Show of hands, please, from fellow Fchatters reading this thread... Seems like a great deal, doesn't it!!?? I've no doubt that Justice Flaux is committed to seeking justice in this case. I respect his willingness to wade in and attempt to put a stop to all the lawyers racking billable hours (and effectively transferring the value of the asset from the owners to themselves). Respectfully, however, I must submit that his comments regarding Florence Swaters are analogous to the blind man holding the elephant's tail and using that as the basis for the description of what is before him. Again, I mean no disrespect and he has quite a mess on his hands, but after 24 years and 10 months acquaintance with this case, my perspective is somewhat different. I don't know why Jacques Swaters did what he did. I cannot say with clarity whether Philippe Lancksweert's efforts augmented, emboldened, or blunted Mr. Swaters campaign to serially possess this stolen artifact. I can offer this opinion: Jacques Swaters should have sent a straw man to buy the remaining assets associated with 0384 when they were proposed for auction by Kristie Kleve Lawson. Instead he elected to return to the scene of the crime in a foolish (for someone in possession of stolen goods) attempt to gain possession through legal means in the Hamilton County Courts in Cincinnati, Ohio. And for that and that alone, we have the case before us. For all those years Jacques Swaters was able to game Karl Kleve, all the while keeping Karl's stolen property at bay in Europe. Never once did he dare return the car to US soil. It's small consolation a quarter of a century later that Jacques Swaters, through his heir Florence, is not free of the misdeeds of that time- to which his name is now indelibly linked.
I agree. It's interesting to read this thread: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/288gto-f40-f50-enzo-laferrari/227591-need-help-locating-enzo-s-n-132648-a.html Note the photos from the day. Note the current auction description. Note the London owner. Note the banned user's posts. Note where the proceeds of this sale are going.
We must keep in mind that Justice Flaux has yet to make a ruling on the merits with respect to any of the substantive issues. As reported by Enigma Kim, the motion that was decided on June 5 was purely a procedural one, which apparently turned on the fact that Ford and Lawson had 14 days after service by Bonhams of its action against them, to file a motion to limit the London Court's jurisdiction over them, solely to "dispute in relation to" the HoA. (The quote is from the HoA's forum selection clause.) Rather than competently do so, Ford and Lawson's lawyers did the opposite and filed a cross-complaint asking the London court to determine the substantive ownership issue. Having tested the waters in the meantime and finding them a bit chilly, Ford and Lawson moved the court essentially to ignore their own voluntary invocation of the London court's jurisdiction. It appears that Justice Flaux not only had no choice but to follow the 15-day filing deadline, he also showed a little animosity regarding the chicanery of these two scheming Yanks. However, he did not decide the ownership issue. Rather, he apparently intends to put the trial of that issue at the front end of the case. It is reasonable to expect that an order that Swaters owns 100% of the car, or that the estate of Karl Kleve does, will cause many other issues to fall into place, such that the parties might reach a settlement agreement without further ado. This falls under the heading of something which was done and which cannot be undone. It is likewise with respect to the car as it sits today. It seems that some posters to this thread would like to turn back the clock to 1989, when the entirety of the remains of #0384 were last in Karl Kleve's possession. This would require the demolition of the car as it sits today, including the removal of the drivetrain and all the repro body panels and other components, and once again cutting the frame rails to match Karl Kleve's handiwork. It would also require Kristi Lawson and her sisters to refund all the money that was paid to Kleve by Jacques Swaters. The first part could be done -- the return of the hulk and the parts -- but I doubt if the refund of the money is possible. Wouldn't it be great if the parties had simply decided to accept the things they cannot change, and had instead agreed to auction the car and parts and to split the proceeds 50/50? Would that not have been a just result? Would that not have removed the stain, as much as humanly possible? Too bad no one thought of it.
It's my thoughts that Classiche should simply replicate the entire car, and give the two of them to Florence and Kristi! Then, they could crank out, what? .....three or four more.....to settle the other claims. A replica would run what, maybe $500K? Cheaper all around than the $$$ being thrown down this rabbit hole.... Soloman couldn't slice this baby thin enough....
Victoria's Secret's Les Wexner sues auction house for £11m over Ferrari 375-Plus | Daily Mail Online Billionaire lingerie boss sues auction house for £11million over Ferrari it sold him despite legal row over who owned it Les Wexner, 77, paid £10.9 million for 1954 Ferrari 375-Plus at Goodwood It is the highest price ever publicly paid for a road-legal car in England He has launched a High Court lawsuit against auction house Bonhams Victoria's Secret boss claims he was not made aware of ownership dispute Read more: Victoria's Secret's Les Wexner sues auction house for £11m over Ferrari 375-Plus | Daily Mail Online Mr Wexner has asked for a declaration of valid rescission of the sale of the Ferrari, restitution of monies paid by the buyer, damages and compound interest. The businessman and Copley Motorcars, a US dealer which acted for Mr Wexner at the sale, have declined to comment further. A statement from Bonhams said: 'We are satisfied that any claim is wholly without merit and will be strongly contested
Read more of the same article? Both your links reference the same DailyMail.com article. Its simple There isn't one legitimate reason stopping Les Wexner from importing the Ferrari to his home State of Ohio to register the car there. In fact, Les Wexner was not the purchasing party from Bonhams. He did not sign the buyers contract, nor was the car invoiced to him, he wasn't even there. It was invoiced solely to Copley Motorcars dba/Stu Carpenter. And, Stu was not listed as the agent for Les Wexner. Instead he is listed as the Principle Buyer known as Copley Motorcars. Stu Carpenter was well aware of the legal situation surrounding 0384AM for more than a year before the auction. Stu Carpenter is known in the car collector circles for his association with the Ferrari collector/billionaire Leslie Wexner, and Joe Ford knew that. His intentions were to use Stu to sell the 375+ to the most likely candidate, Les Wexner. Joe professed to be the current title holder and owner of 0384AM. Several other brokers were also involved trying to put the deal together. Lots of emails and phone calls between all the parties involved are now evidence, part of the Court records. It's proof Stu had knowledge of the legal problems and ownership issue. Stu had the case numbers to each of the lawsuits already filed in Ohio concerning the ownership issue, and knew this long before he waved his paddle. Stu Carpenter clearly knew and had been warned about Joe Fords proclaimed ownership fame was presumptively fraudulent by law. Carpenter also knew that there was a court order restricting Ford from interfering with the Ferrari sale, because, he received those court documents according to the source I know who sent them to him. Before the auction date in June, Stu was the 'agent acting' on behalf of Les Wexner and knew about Ford's fraudulent proclaimed ownership and title, then, decided he wasn't interested in buying the Ferrari. Stu made it clear to the brokers from California that Les was not interested in dealing with those brokers nor is he their buyer. Les had already been scammed by one of them (a California Vineyard owner) before Bonhams stepped in and shut that down months before the auction.
I think it still remains that 0384 is a stolen car. Can't wash that off so easily. Unless the one Wexner bought is just a creation made without any parts from Kleve's car, and all those parts exist outside Wexners car, then bring it in as a recreation. An expensive one. Perry
Last week in London, Les' lawyer said that they relied on Bonhams representation that they would get easy titling of the car in the United States. First of all, Les cannot register the car in his home state, which is Ohio, secondly, that until it is registered he cannot get legal title to the car and cannot sell it and, thirdly, that without the certificate evidence in title he would commit an offence even by operating it within Ohio. Bonhams made the allegation that Les could get title by means of an import certificate. Les claims that there has to be expert evidence on Ohio law on those points. Les needs to start by importing the car to the States, paying the $2M in tax and having the VIN number affirmed for the first time ever by his home State. The issue is about the fraudulent Ohio Title and ownership claim, and is NOT about a stolen Ferrari. The question is, "Did Bonhams convey a legal title under London Law?" Bonhams retained the original bogus Ohio title that Karl gave Jacques Swaters when he sold the car in 1999, and Florence gave that title to Bonhams. That bogus title was then again retitled by Karl Kleve as a duplicate in 2001, and then again by Kristie Kleve Lawson after her probate fraud and then again by Joe Ford by making false statements on his application and lying to the Courts. It was sent with the parts by Court order to London in September of 2013. That Ohio title has a hold on it in Ohio pending final decision by the Courts. Its gotten more and more fraudulent since the discovery of the Purged files, and the concealed Probate Inventory claiming no Ferrari at the death of Kleve. The title is fraud. Now, on top of that issue is the Kristie Lawson Probate fraud. The Probate documents are on the other-site in case you didn't read them. The 375 Plus was never part of the Kleve estate because, well, it was legally sold to Jacques Swaters. So Kristie Kleve can't make claim that she inherited the car, therefore she can't legally get a Title, and neither can Joe Ford. Bonhams wouldnt and didnt issue Stu Carpenter of Copley Motors the false Ohio documents. Those so called "documents" are meaningless in actual title rights much like any fake check it has no value at all. Image Unavailable, Please Login
My question was in reference to the comment that Les is not a party to the "purchase", but as you said Copley Motors.
All you need is the VIN number to "restore" a car. Putting new skins, instruments, glass, rubber, tubular frame, steering wheel....literally anything and everything on that car can be "restored". That doesn't mean it makes it a "recreation". And yes it probably was a very expensive restoration. I would think $1ml plus. We know the car is serial #0384. And it's NOT a stolen car, that was "washed off" years ago. No police, FBI, INTERPOL, or any other cops, etc....nobody has a "stolen car report" still open and active today. Doesn't exist. The car was auctioned. If it were stolen, there would be NO auction. I guess with your logic, John Shirley's car is also a stolen car, yet it won Pebble Beach. Many other Ferrari cars were stolen over the years, recovered, settled out in insurance claims, or paid out in settlements, like Kristie Lawson recieved money for all she sold, along with Karl's payment, which is now well documented with the current Probate Fraud of Madame Lawson. Cars, usally race cars, are burned, bruised, busted, wrecked, abandoned and parted out only to be repaired, sold, conveyed, involved in lawsuits, stolen, concealed from authorities in Probates, and hidden from greedy sisters and by executors of Estates in Ohio. So what? Then, in a legal auction they are sold - clear and clean - under the law. Ever buy a drug dealer's Rolls? Ever have a girl friend that was a virgin?
The existence and execution of an auction does not prove anything at all...very recently a 1930's Mercedes was put on auction, and then the heirs of the car placed an injunction order on it, after many more years then the whole Kleve/Lawson/Swaters party.
In the case of your amoebic post, existence and execution of a post does not prove anything at all. Your post does not reflect any contribution to this thread. There are no heirs or heiresses, only a legal auction, a conspiratress, a billionaire under the influence, and a Justice's ruling that will shut down the life we've read in this blog of a few wannabes.
I am explaining to you that the fact the car was put on "auction" does not prove anything - your comment does not add anything - keep your day job as a cartoonist. Do you remember who wrote this genius comment, "The car was auctioned. If it were stolen, there would be NO auction"???
bottom line to this story is there are parallel (two) lineages that claim ownership to the car one lineage starts with the entry of the car into Belgium, there is no legal link to any prior ownership other than what has been created in Belgium... this lineage is battling to connect the other lineage is in Ohio which can trace its' lineage back to the car's "birth" at Ferrari without any defect or gaps in ownership to the Kleve the battle is about whether good ownership title was conveyed through some sort of valid transaction in Ohio... thus far no conclusion has been reached in Ohio... for a transfer to occur it must be released by the selling owners, to date the Ohio courts have ruled in favor of selling owners... leaving a gap in the lineage / no valid transfer occurred... property NOT properly owned cannot be transferred leaving a defect in lineage ... there begins the battle much stuff has been thrown clouding the issues by the litigants ... Belgium and Uk courts can rule all they want, in any way they want, they can rule only on what is before them, applies only within their jurisdiction, and have no authority to close ownership issues elsewhere... the ownership remains as recognized in Ohio... until then the Ohio owners are deprived of the car allowing them to deem the car as stolen ( having lost possession and control )... Stolen property of any kind cannot be transferred... that anyone selling the car is selling stolen property... or courts cannot rule on stolen property from another jurisdiction until all claims are settled in prior jurisdiction
Very well put. I have yet to read anywhere why the "Belgium" crowd even considered paying Kleve if he never had to to anything with the car or if his ownership rights were so "questionable". Reading between the lines, what would seem like many "lawyer/0384 hobbyist", are in actuality individuals with vested interests - the slander, the rudeness, the base and course tone/word expressed by many here all point to winning the "jackpot" and have nothing to do with justice (and I am referring to ALL those involved). It is far too obvious what occurred many years ago - some unscrupulous group of people got together and believed that an apparently old not so mentally sane man left a "heap"/"bulk" of "pipes/metal" laying around - it was a gamble at the time, and continues to be one now. The gamble continues...Swaters, Ford, Bohmans, Les...
Your posts today, mbzgirl, REALLY start to sound like revisionist history. Or even good fiction writing. There ARE stolen car reports. There IS a history of FBI and Interpol investigation.... You might want to dial it back a notch.....or, STFU until you get the car. Then you can crow all you want!
I wholly disagree with your cavalier attitude towards stolen property. If it can be proven that some one was paid for the property, and title was transferred, then it's free and clear. As far as I can see on this item, that didn't happen. It was stolen, and then the Belgian contingent ie. Swaters partner, tried to strong arm Kleve by dictating what was going to happen to his car now that they had taken physical possession of it, not legal possession. How nice of them to tell him what they were doing with it. Except by some Belgian voodoo, it was considered 'legal'. If Mr. Shirley's car is considered stolen, I assure you it wouldn't be at Pebble. I would assume the 'owners' would try to regain possession. That is not the case. Unless it had titled conveyed, it's still stolen, once that report was opened. That hasn't been satisfied. Perry
Has anyone given an explanation to why Swaters informed Kleve what was going to be done to the 0384? Could someone point out how Swaters justifies that the car went from Kleve's junkyard to his privat collection? Are there any statute of limitations in play here?
As has been previously discussed, Belgian law provides a timespan after which an "innocent buyer" of stolen goods gets clear title. BUT this does not mean that other jurisdictions will have the same treatment of the property. Without having to re-hash this thread the quick points are that: 1. Was the transaction that of an "innocent buyer"? 2. Was the use of the number 0394 a way to hide the identity so that the clock would run out for prior owner claims? Some other points: A. I have been told that there were folks held in very high esteem trying to convince JS to make it right with Kleve. As told to me, he was at that point not so inclined. For those that think that the transaction for the payment to Kleve settled all ownership claims ponder this: If that was a definitive transaction without any defects would it not be reasonable for the Belgian contingent to have used this to settle all this several years ago?
the courts also may be complacent through lack of control, ignorance and fraught with judicial bias in this case by allowing litigation to be heard on obtuse arguments that allowed the case to be derailed from the strict merits to establish who has title... as supported by the pile of BS heard by the courts
