375+ # 0384

History of #0384

The VIN change at the hands of Francorchamp is a major part of the HISTORY of chassis # 0384.

This part of the HISTORY has been written about and displayed for over

25 years since the real chassis (#0384) was illegally masked as #0394.

How is it that you do not know the VIN change HISTORY of #0384 to an Illegal VIN number #0394? I believe this has been addressed in English publications concerning the sale and History of #0384

And why would you use the word MYTH since anyone who followed #0384 knew that the VIN was illegally altered to #0394 from the original legally imported #0384.

I have spelled this out over these last years and I must have been drowned out by forces

with louder voices.

I presented the information leading to the discovery of the Forged title document from Ohio

I presented the fact that Kleve had no title or bill of sale EVER and this was proved in the Atlanta trial.

I also presented that the forged Bill of Sale that was issued from Kimberly to Kleve was a forged and illegal document.

I presented the fact that Kleve could not legally list the VIN number as stolen since he could not prove ownership.

I am now stating that the VIN number was changed after March of 1990 from a legal #0384 to an illegal VIN number #0394.

All of the answers to all of the questions have been written in these many pages for all to see. But now perhaps we can look at this VIN change in depth without the many spoilers screaming look over here and look over there.

OH by the way, the Sabina X-ray to positively verify the chassis number as #0384 was performed By L’Exceptional Automobile and not Francorchamp. So please forgive me for busting that Myth.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

SABENA, as in Such A Bloody Experience, Never Again.

Not Sabina.

 

Saw this on Yahoo. Seems fraught with inaccuracy.

1954 Ferrari Racer Pits Lingerie Tycoon Against Bonhams - Bloomberg Business

Perry

 

[size=+2]The 16-Year Legal Battle Over This $16.5 Million Ferrari[/size]
[size=+1]The bizarre and tumultuous history of a ‘car worth fighting for’[/size]
by Jeremy Hodges
July 9, 2015 — 9:01 PM MST

Wanted: one caring owner for a cherry-red 1954 Ferrari racer; current proprietorship heavily contested.
When an eccentric U.S. Army engineer who worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II bought a burned-out Ferrari chassis for $2,500 in 1958, he had no idea that it would become the most fought-over car on the planet.

“It’s a car worth fighting for... It’s an important car”
Now, after 16 years of lawsuits and ownership claims from Paraguay to Switzerland, the fate of the roadster, which Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner thought he bought last year for 10.7 million pounds ($16.5 million), is finally coasting toward resolution in a London court. Ferrari made just five 375 Plus models that year and only four of those gleaming symbols of motor racing’s golden age remain. Fashion designer Ralph Lauren and candy billionaire Giorgio Perfetti have two of them.
“This vehicle, along with a number of others, has entered into the realm of fine art,” Dave Kinney, publisher of the Hagerty Price Guide for classic cars, said by phone from Great Falls, Virginia.

Wanted: one caring owner for a cherry-red 1954 Ferrari racer Bonhams
The move toward closure of the case, or curse, of the racecar, which can clock 280 kilometers (174 miles) per hour, comes amid a surge in the value of vintage Ferraris. A 1962 250 GTO fetched $38.1 million at auction last year, the most ever for a car. Hagerty’s Ferrari Index of 13 models has more than tripled since 2010, peaking at $5.4 million in May.
The last undisputed owner of the 330-horsepower 375 Plus was Karl Kleve, the army engineer-turned designer, artist, serial tinkerer and author - of a book linking baldness to blood circulation.

Trailer Heist
Kleve, who died in 2003 at the age of 90, bought the car’s damaged body from the heir to the Kleenex tissue fortune, Jim Kimberly, to add to his collection. It languished on a trailer outside his home near Cincinnati, Ohio, for three decades before it was stolen sometime between 1985 and 1989, according to court documents. That’s when things started to get weird.

Shortly thereafter, the Italian machine, or at least part of it, turned up in Antwerp via Atlanta, where it had been acquired by a Belgian trader. Customs officials there impounded the car to determine its ownership after Kleve reported it stolen, but authorities sided with the trader. Once cleared, it was sold to another Belgian, Jacques Swaters, a Ferrari dealer and former racing driver, for an undisclosed sum.

“This vehicle, along with a number of others, has entered into the realm of fine art” Bonhams
Not knowing it had been purloined, Swaters, who considered Enzo Ferrari, the automaker’s late founder, a close friend, spent years restoring the car and its barchetta-style aluminum bodywork to racing form. In 1999, after Kleve located the vehicle and confirmed his ownership by its chassis number, 0384M, Swaters agreed to pay $625,000 to keep it.

‘An Important Car’
“It’s a car worth fighting for,” John Collins, owner of U.K. Ferrari dealer Talacrast, said by phone Thursday. “It’s an important car.”
A decade later, after both Swaters and Kleve died, a daughter of Swaters filed a suit in Ohio arguing that Kleve violated the sales agreement by withholding some of the car’s parts, according to court documents. That claim of ownership was followed by two others -- one by a fellow Ohio resident and the other by a U.S. citizen living in Switzerland.

“It’s a car worth fighting for” Bonhams
In 2013, the four parties jointly agreed to “extinguish all claims and counterclaims” and allow Bonhams, one of the world’s oldest auction houses, to sell the roadster so they could split the proceeds. And so last June, after an extensive marketing campaign, it was sold to Wexner, the lingerie billionaire, at an auction at the historic Goodwood Festival of Speed in the British countryside.

But the bickering didn’t stop there.

Paraguayan Dealer
Wexner sued Bonhams after the sale, claiming the auctioneer had failed to inform him of unresolved ownership disputes and demanding a full refund plus damages. Bonhams, for its part, sued Kleve’s daughter, Kristine, for allegedly breaching the terms of their settlement deal prior to the sale.

And that’s not all:
Bonhams is also suing a Paraguayan car dealer for deceit. The dealer, the company said in a complaint, sent a letter three days before the auction claiming ownership of the Ferrari. The auction house, anxious to avoid canceling the centerpiece of the Goodwood Festival, allegedly paid him 2 million pounds, according to the documents.
All four lawsuits related to the roadster in London have been folded together so a judge can settle the disputes once and for all. The next hearing is scheduled for September.

Average cost of vintage Ferraris Hagerty
Lawyers for each party involved either declined to comment or didn’t respond to e-mails seeking comment.

While Kleve may not have foreseen the extent to which people would one day go to possess his once-battered chassis, he certainly would have appreciated the passion behind it.
He started his collection in 1939 with his mother’s black 16-cylinder 1936 Cadillac, according to an obituary in the Cincinnati Enquirer. By the time his Ferrari was stolen, the collection was so vast that his neighbors had started to complain, prompting a court to order him to clear his yard.

“Do you know anyone in America who’s limited to two cars?” Kleve asked the judge in 1990, according to the newspaper. “Especially one who loves cars? Cars are my life.”

1954 Ferrari Racer Pits Lingerie Tycoon Against Bonhams - Bloomberg Business
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

"once cleared"......

What exactly is THAT supposed to mean??

You know, girl....you have me incorrectly pegged as "in OJ's corner", in all of this.

I am simply in the corner of "what is right, and what is wrong"....

Your posts, and all of them from the CG camp, simply CONSTANTLY smack of revisionist history. Even this posted article does. Until ONE side or the other, PROVES all the money floating around even reached Karl Kleve, the car remains "stolen"...

Interpol and the FBI knew that, but lacked legal recovery mechanism.

Everything else, since Kleve died, has all the legal sophistication IMO, of a Marx Brothers movie script.

Thanks for the link, and pictures, though......

 

I would say so......

 

The English Court sees it the other way around.

Money was paid to an authorised agent under the terms of a notarised agreement in consideration for title and a release of a theft status until proven otherwise.

The nagging question for me is, if the document is a fraud, then why did Kleve, his lawyer or his daughters fail to take action or even question their agent ?

 

Maybe he didn't know how to file a lawsuit.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Best answer I have seen in regard to anything in this thread for quite a bit!

 

+1

Brilliant

 

A privileged glimpse of the obvious?

 

I certainly understand that.

In that case, however, the car is now free, to drive anywhere, in England, the new owner might wish.


I personally think Karl was the victim of a rogue business agant, about the time his own mental facilities began to fail him to allow aa adequate response.

If "all the money" ever made it, to his bank, a simple review of his Bank Records would have tabled this whole thing, long ago.

That's an impressive case index!
The dates of those go back to when he was alive???

 

It gets interesting at the "unknown spouse" part, certainly!

 

Hang on, this makes no sense.

Kleve files all these lawsuits in Cincinnati during the same 375 Plus time frame ordeal, and is in direct contact with Swaters, fails to file ONE lawsuit regarding Swaters? Nor against the agent Daniels? Nor, against Tim Smith for representing him during the "Settlement deal of 1999"? And, Kleve files no suit against the FBI, local police, or anyone for not doing their legal/Police work?

The only reason it could be is - certainly and clearly - he had already settled with his agent, settled with Swaters, settled with the FBI, settled with the local police – and the Ferrari was no longer his. Then, you have the Kleve Estate, the Ferrari having not been listed in the Probate as an asset - despite the false Ohio titles.

Then, we have Joe Ford knowing damn well that the Probate didn't included the Ferrari for a simple reason - Kleve didn’t own it anymore. Reading the transcripts on the "other F site", it seems that this is no re-invention of the wheel, it’s just calling it out in non-legal terms what happened.

I typed "Paraguayan Senor Jose Alfredo Zanotti-Cavazzoni" on Google and got the run down on more of the 375 scam, seems very organized .............very interesting reading.....I’d post it, but it’s loaded with names of Ferrari people, and I don’t want to risk a BAN!!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Bill are you saying all of these are lawsuits filed by Kleve? Could these court records be some thing else? Civil filings? Responses inside a dispute?

You seem to imply in your post that they are all lawsuits filed by Kleve.

Thanks

 

+1

 

You could look up the answers to your questions, starting at this search page: http://www.courtclerk.org/comp_name_search.asp. My point in posting Karl Kleve's unique, 99.9999th percentile, litigation history in Hamilton County was that he surely knew how to file a claim for judicial relief from any injury, as to which he thought himself the owner. The fact that he never did so with respect to #0384 is conclusive proof that he did not consider himself the owner of any such claim.

My further review of the search results tells me that the Karl Kleve lawsuits listed in my search results span a period from 1972 to 2009, and that Kleve's activity tailed off dramatically in the late '90s. I did a random review of every 10th case and found that the subject of nearly every case was an action by a government agency, having to do with blighted buildings and vacant lots. Either a government agency was enforcing a code violation, or Kleve was appealing an adverse administrative decision. The cause of the winding down of litigation activity in the late '90s might been that Kleve had no property left for the government to torment him about. It might have been the advance of his geriatric dementia. Or could it be that he received a large infusion of cash, in or about 1999, such that he could maintain his property in a code-compliant condition?

 

Thanks Bill that was neat the way you tied all those screen shots together. In the end It Has absolutely Nothing to with Kleve filing lawsuits.

Nothing.

Carry On.....

 

googled the recommended "zanotti" etc url

it has a non flattering description / account of zanatti .... well worth reading it

the other "site" has a write up if one wants to go direct to it and avoid google, the other menntioned sites did not translate

 

I attended an appeal application in the High Court today. Zanotti lost

I will post details of his claim

 

is a little time that I follow this interesting debate, kindly can provide the latest developments?

 

The Illegal VIN change of #0384 to #0394

The VIN number of the exported 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus on 2/22/1989 was
Chassis number #0384.

I know this to be a FACT because I sent #0384 to Europe for restoration to Michel K. at L’ Exceptional Automobile who imported the chassis #0384 on 3/14/89.


FACT: the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus had an Illegal Vin number change at Francorchamp in 1990.


This alteration act was not a mistake; this was intentional, deliberate and extremely illegal.

This Fact alone should be reason enough for a refund of the purchase price and fees requested by the buyer concerning the Ferrari 375 Plus Chassis # _???????_ .

So, in the spirit of cooperation, here is additional information exposing that illegal VIN
change.

Now who had dirty hands concerning the illegally altered Ferrari VIN #0394?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Swaters knew.


On display are documents that completely contradict each other in reference
to the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus VIN number.

Please observe the written statement on the Fax dated 4/4/1990.

“Don’t you think that this car, which is definitely the #0384” as said By Jacques Swaters,

This is further proof that the illegal renumbering (#0394) was intentional and done too deceive.

Furthermore, Swaters writes that #0394 was NOT built by the Factory as a car, but was raced under the number #0394. He goes on to say that Ferrari registered the car as #0394 to race 3 events.

Now how naive can we be if anyone believes that statement. So why all of these lies?

Let’s look at the other documents.

In an affidavit of Jacques Swaters dated 5/25/2012 for the Ohio proceedings,
Swaters said: he did NOT know what the middle digit was on the VIN number.

WHAT!!! Swaters fax statement dated 4/4/1990 states clearly that Swaters knew the chassis number as #0384.
Swaters changed #0384 to the non-existent #0394 even though #0384 was not listed as stolen from 1989 thru 1997 on NCIC or Interpol.

Now for the FBI file statement. It states very clearly that:

Swaters claimed he had #0394. Yes, the same #0394 that he said was not a car at all.

Note; Francorchamp was a very old Ferrari dealer and had access to all of the correct information from Ferrari Automobili S.P.A.

The car was not listed as stolen until 1997 so why do you think Swaters lied to all concerning this Ferrari?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here is who saw the Ferrari displayed in 1992 as #0394 at Francorchamp.

The now illegally VIN #0394 swapped car was on display for all to view.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ra2DGr4Fh0

 

Thanks for the Francorchamps Video.

Tell me...who is the person Patrick Faucompre is standing behind in this YouTube video?

Also, who was directing the number crunching of 0394AM and 0384AM so it got into print?

Regarding your posted letter from Francorchamp to Kleve; no one in their right mind would send this to someone having a valid claim, let alone a letter to an open public invitation. Swaters clearly was misled by a gang of conspirators, some planted right at his side. The 0394AM slant was obviously never taken seriously, since, not one photo ever existed of a re-numbering. But, there always existed in the factory records, the mix up of 0394AM and 0384AM, that actually goes as far back as 1954 by error or Ferrari's system back then. This was repeatedly reported long before Swaters involvement in 0384AM. Furthermore, the 0384AM number was not visible on the chassis when viewed in Atlanta, yet it was clearly legible on the "removed" chassis plate the FBI had. Like all the early proof reads shows, 0394AM was an opinion at a particular time of research, and not a Swaters absolute fabrication. Quickly, that issue was settled and it became the law that 0384AM was the car, and 0394AM was the error.

No one can produce a photo of a chassis plate stamped 0394AM, nor a chassis stamping of 0394AM, nor a title for 0394AM. The genuine 0394AM existed only in Paraguay, with owners Favero/Zanotti/Faucompre and RunSpotRun (unless you got cheated out of your share of the £1,000,000). Shall I fill in all the blanks in the crime against both Kleve and Swaters? What a den of foxes in the hen house! Cluck cluck.
Image Unavailable, Please Login