The beauty of the Internet. People can hide behind most anything while on the Internet. People can say most anything on the internet. But, the beauty of the internet is that even if shielded, when specifics are cited, readers clearly see the identity of the author . That, my friend, is called Having an Agenda. Why dont you post the picture of the chassis plate at that gala in 1992? (#0394) The same plate that you dispute even after overwhelming evidence has been posted by Ferrari Historians, Ferrari authorities, and Ferrari only magazines. Are you saying that all of these knowledgeable people are lying? How are you an expert? You handle says MBZ GURL and not FERRARI MAMA I would like to know which old broad you are in the video from that FF40 celebration.(1992) How old are you? I hope you are not another 14 year old at his keyboard. Are you even female? Please point out Patrick Faucompre in the video; since I have not seen him and I understand he is a real Ferrari expert. He did post some really good information in the F-chat pages. Does he have the picture of the #0394 chassis plate from the FF40 celebration? Can you please ask him for me? You stated: Regarding your posted letter from Francorchamp to Kleve. I did not post a letter from Francorchamp to Kleve! What are you talking about? I posted a Telefax directly from Swaters to Siebert dated 4/4/1990. Your statement that Swaters was misled by a gang of conspirators is interesting, so Please elaborate on that? I am not a combatant, I just seek the knowledge that you claim you can supply. Finally, please post the MIXUP documents at the Ferrari factory where they did not know the chassis number they were the manufacturer of. You imply Ferrari did not know #0384 was the real race car and #0394 was just an engine. How can that be? I would love to see those documents.
Another eye wateringly expensive hearing that sheds more light on this saga. This time from the Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Lord Justice, Sir Andrew Longmore. Zanotti was appealing an earlier decision given my Justice Flaux at the last case management hearing and he lost (with costs) with the appeal itself being criticised. The story (for colour and intrigue see the other site) On 23rd September 2003, Mr Jose Zanotti Cavazzoni (a Paraguayan with an Italian name) purchased from his old friend, Dr Favero (another Italian who's name sounds familiar), part of his classic car collection that was being stored in a warehouse in Parma, Italy (just up the road from the factory). The purchase documentation (curiously notarized in Montevideo, Uruguay) included reference to some parts from a 375 Plus including pieces of chassis and engine bearing the number 0384AM. The following year, the collection disappeared from the warehouse, presumed stolen and was never to be seen of by Mr Zanotti again. Mr Zanotti first heard that 0384AM was to be sold, only a month before the auction and instructed English Lawyers to send a “letter before action” to Bonhams, which arrived, together with a large bundle of documents, on the 25th June, only two days before the auction. Bonhams responded alleging fraud but on the morning of the auction agreed to pay £1m on the 30th June and a further £1m by the 31st July to enable the auction to proceed. Bonhams paid the first installment but after Wexner took action to rescind his purchase on 8th July, Bonhams stopped the second payment. Zanotti retaliated by threatening a winding up order against Bonhams and Bonhams responded by taking action to rescind their agreement on the basis of “fraudulent misrepresentation and/or under economic duress” (Google for an explanation). By then Bonhams had started their “Stakeholder proceedings” against Ford/Lawson and at the case management hearing on 19th March 2015, Zanotti was made a party to these proceedings on the basis that he was making a claim on the car. Zanotti was now embroiled in very expensive litigation (a lot of which has nothing to do with him) which he has been trying to wriggle out of at the same time as trying to get his hands on the second payment. Things got worse for Zanotti at the 5th June case management hearing when, Judge Flaux gave his “put up or shut up” direction to get Zanotti off the fence. He directed Zanotti to either file a statement of claim to 0384AM and join the stakeholder party or file a statement affirming he has no claim. Zanotti tried to have his cake and eat it by responding that he did not have a claim HOWEVER, he could not categorically say he did not have a claim unless he was given the opportunity to inspect the car. Judge Flaux saw through this and refused any inspection before the proceedings, leaving Zanotti to make the definitive statement that he has No interest in the car or any part of it. It was an appeal against Judge Flaux’s decision not to allow the inspection of the car that was heard last Thursday. Lord Justice Longmore had clearly already made his mind up before he listened to Mr Barclay Jones QC, rattle on for forty minutes arguing a case that was doomed from the start. Even the Bonhams/Wexner/Swaters gang of QC’s sat in silence throughout (but still being paid) until Lord Justice Longmore read a previously prepared statement dismissing the appeal on the basis that Justice Flaux has got it right in the first place and if Zanotti GENUINELY wanted to inspect the car, he could have asked for it at the very beginning. Finally, there were oblique references to ongoing mediation and global settlement discussions throughout the hearing and it was interesting to see the opposing parties in a huddle in the lobby when I left. With Zanotti now out of the picture, the Ohio jurisdiction dead and buried and Ford/Gardner in arbitration next month, common sense over the HoA may yet prevail. K Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thanks Kim for posting. Nice to hear the "reality" as this slowly moves forward to a hopeful conclusion.
LOL! Me too! Just driving around in a rattling old rusty Italian car pales in comparison, to all the stuff going on in here. I do make sure none of the rattles are coming from my number plate fasteners. Thanks for your insights, Kim and the wonderful photo!! Interesting Fchat former member invoked, in one of MB Gurlz posts, a shame he is no longer with us here. He could share his thoughts.... I now understand the South American claim. At least he got $1M.....that's some 'feel good" money!
Common sense is not in the mix when Joe Ford is. Interestingly, Kim, you do not mention the presence of counsel for Ford-Lawson or Gardner, at the hearing or in the hallway. It would not be surprising that the Ohio Contingency lacks sufficient interest in Zanotti's request for an inspection of Florence Swaters's car, to want to pay a battery of attorneys to sit and take notes. (Actually, I can't think why Zanotti himself would be interested, given that he apparently has never laid eyes on the Parma parts collection, including whatever 0384AM relics he claims to own.) In any event, at this stage of the proceedings no global settlement can happen without the OC's participation. Settlement is good, but it also leaves the parties without a determination of disputed facts. I am looking forward to that October trial, a three-day event which will wipe out the majority of nine years of posts to this thread. I expect that if the parties settle prior to a judicial resolution of the Swaters-Kleve/Lawson ownership dispute that this thread will outlive us all.
I suspect there won't be anything of substance until after the scheduled dates of the arbitration. That makes it August 4th at the earliest without any continuances. One might speculate that the indications of settlement discussions in London have not made it to a conclusion since that would have likely resulted in some sort of announcement.
Agreed but I always thought it unlikely there would be a settlement before the arbitration between Gardner and Ford was concluded. The incentive for a mediated settlement is there as the title hearing is scheduled for October and only the lawyers will be looking forward to that one.
I assume the arbitration between Ford and Gardner in Florida is over and that the conclusion will be published in due course. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for the 19th October to consider the title (who owns the car, Swaters or the OC) At the case management hearing in March, Justice Flaux, having heard the arguments, agreed that the principal issue to be considered at the hearing, with expert witnesses, are: The authenticity of the 1999 Settlement agreement. Was it forged ? The application of Belgium Law. Was the original purchase by Swaters valid under Belgium Law ? The application of New York Law. The relevance of this was unclear but similarly, I concluded this was to consider the fundamental legal basis of the 1999 Settlement agreement under New York Law There are two days set aside for the hearing which suggest that Justice Flaux does not see this as a complicated issue despite Ford/Lawson trying to make it so. The date is in my diary.
The Other Site reports the arbitration hearing concluded after 11 days. If Tuesday August 4 was the first day, the 11th business day would have been Tuesday August 18. With testimony having concluded 16 days ago I would expect the arbitrator(s) to issue a ruling any day now. The Other Site posts up quite a bit of other news on the arbitration, but the webmaster claims the source to have been Joe Ford's attorney Tim Smith. The webmaster writes that he got the info in a phone call with Smith, in which he represented himself to be interested in making a movie about this fiasco. As pathetic as Smith has shown himself to be as an attorney, it is dubious that he is silly enough to share with a stranger on the phone as much information as The Other Site claims to have pulled out of him. But in any event, it's there on The Other Site for your reading pleasure, under the Wanted in Florida tab.
Interesting reading. Apart from the unsurprising fact that all of Kleves bank statements have gone missing and are not available for disclosure, Max Vito has estimated that the legal costs to conclude the dispute are £9m and more than the sale proceeds for the car. At first glance, £9m seems as ridiculous as it is obscene but on reflection, I suspect the £9m comes from the cost estimates that are required to be submitted to the cost management conference before the hearing. The title hearing is scheduled to last two days and the main trial two weeks. We have already had two case management hearings, applications and orders with QC's involved (one of which Vito claims to be charging £600,000 for the trial alone) so we are already well on the way to this "grotesque" cost. To me, what makes it all the more incredable is that this dispute is all because Joe was unhappy with his share of 50% and that he has managed to get someone else to pay for it.
On any given day in any given metro area a Small Claims Court is handling similar beefs over used car sales gone wrong, for about the price of a tank of gas. Of course in these cases Joe Ford, Kristi Lawson, and the Skivvies King of the Orion Spur, Milky Way Galaxy, are not parties. Speaking of the long-suffering Ms. Lawson, I wonder if her dad's bank records went missing before or after she decided it would be amusing to back door a seven figure Ferrari into his probate estate. Personally, my movie version will be a rip off of "The Usual Suspects," with a mysterious figure repeatedly emerging from the shadows to dispatch, brutally, one principal after another; Ms. Lawson walking away with all the loot; and the London barristers suddenly realizing she fabricated her entire story based on a tattered 20 year old Victoria's Secret catalog that she has carelessly left in the witness box. That last part might be tricky, but that's what script doctors are for.
There seems to be a lot of lawyers in the tread, can one explain to me how this other site is stiil active. The other site is posting pics and slandering the names of many people. Many of the people have nothing to do with this case.
I attended a cost management hearing before Justice Flaux yesterday. The estimated costs to conclude the dispute are as reported. There was also also a case management discussion and a direction to include Gardner as a party in the forthcoming title hearing on the basis that he has an interest in the car in the event that the arbitration finds in his favour at the end of September Image Unavailable, Please Login
I like it... The Bank Records are gone because even Iron Mountain has to eventually throw things away. What would be the normal retainage on such things, for a private individual???
I know tax records have to be retained for 7 years. Bank records for a personal account, I don't believe have to be retained by the individual. The bank may have to retain them for a long period. Perry
