375+ # 0384

What was posted on The Other Site is that its webmaster was speaking with a Queen's Counsel in a Fleet Street bar in late August or early September, with this being the takeway: "The QC struggled to explain, but basically could find no problem with the auction sale. He said all this spinning has been for naught. He said that out of the hundreds of records and tape recordings from Karl Kleve, missing are ALL his banking records from 1999-2003 ** they vanished ! Oh Dear!"

The timeframe of the sale between Jacques Swaters and Karl Kleve/Mark Daniels, whose validity Justice Flaux will be deciding later this month, was July to September 1999. The $400,000 check made out to "Karl Kleve and Mark Daniels," and the $225,000 made out to "National Search Services," are both dated September 2, 1999. A copy of the "Karl Kleve and Mark Daniels" check that is attached to the Swaterses' Complaint includes the back of the check, which indicates it was endorsed and deposited. If Karl Kleve received the proceeds of the sale, we would expect him to have received a bank statement showing their deposit in an account in his name, in or about September 1999. Karl Kleve passed away in December 2003. The bank statement(s) showing the receipt -- if any -- of the proceeds of sale would have been a little more than four years old by then.

Credulous observers might accept that a man who apparently never threw away anything in his life had a rigorous four-year -- or less -- document destruction policy in place with respect to his bank records. I am dubious.

 

This car is a nightmare like some others. It s happening when values are high. In the chain of "pros"
Nobody is honest,( including in this chain, collectors)

Finally, "professional market" (Auctions house, sellers, historians) must to respect a customer. But it result never possible at 100%.
The only way possible is a Ferrari reply. The real source.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The end of September has passed. I take it from Joe Ford's continued silence -- last post June 18 -- that he crapped out in the Florida arbitration.

 

The title hearing is scheduled to start in two weeks so I should find out then assuming no settlement.

At the cost management hearing, Fords solicitor was granted permission to call an Ohio legal expert in addition to a Belgian law expert, a forensics expert and other witnesses. Justice Flaux resisted extending the hearing beyond the allotted two days (he's clearly watched the Ohio Court tapes) and the growing list of attendees does give an indication of what Ford will be arguing.

My guess is the forensic expert will seek to disprove Swaters report that the document is genuine and has not been altered. The Belgian expert will seek to argue that the original sale to Swaters was not in good faith (although surely if the later settlement agreement is valid it was still sold) The Ohio expert will claim that the 1999 settlement agreement was null and void because of Kleves agent Daniels went rouge. The long list of witnesses, who no doubt have been given a share in the proceeds, will claim that Kleves only ever agreed to $3m and that his bank statements showed no trace of the money before they were lost.

The one witness I am not expecting to be there is Mark Daniels. Even though Ford has talked to everyone, including the contents of Gardners address book, he has been unable to contact his Florida neighbour, the man that signed the agreement and the one that collected the cheques. You never know, maybe he has the missing bank statements.

 

Bill, it's all up on the "other" site along with a colourful incite into the Arbitration

In summary, Ford found to have a fiduciary duty to Gardner and they are effectively in partnership with the agreement between them deemed valid insofar as they will split any proceeds 50/50. However, unfortunately for Ford, he has also been ordered to repay $470,000 to Gardner immediately plus any amounts due to Lawson (30% or 10%) are to come out of his own pocket along with any legal costs and claims against him.

What's the next "game changing plan" Joe ?

 

Literally a split the baby decision in the arbitration. I can only guess that the arbitrators found that the January 2011 "375 Plus Agreement" -- the source of the provision for a 50/50 split -- included no fraudulent representations or concealments which caused Gardner to change position to his detriment. In fact, if I recall correctly the 375 Plus Agreement is the source of the arbitration provision on which the Florida arbitration relied. The fact that the Ohio court ordered this binding arbitration implies that both parties conceded that the Financing Agreement is a binding contract. This is my guess of the panel's logic.

The Other Site doesn't mention one consequence of the arbitration award: that if Joe Ford's credibility is an issue with respect to any disputed issue of fact before Justice Flaux's court, the arbitration award includes "res judicata" findings that Joe Ford is a liar, an outlaw, and an abuser of positions of trust. I don't see how Joe Ford's credibility could be in play at the October 19-20 mini-trial. But his attack on the HoA -- that *he* entered into the HoA with the good faith intention to perform, but that he was fraudulently induced to do so; that *he* and his co-conspirator Kristi Lawson attempted to perform their duties under the HoA in good faith, but were prevented to do so by Swaters's litigation conduct; and that an extension of Bonhams' agency to June 2014, arising from the factual impossibility of a September 2013 auction sale caused by Ford's and Lawson's non-performance, was not a correct construction of the HoA -- *will* call into question Ford's credibility.

One model of Joe Ford's tactics which explains most of what he's done in these transactions is that he thinks he has a super-human ability to out-negotiate his counterparts, such that any loose ends not tied up leave the door open for him to exercise his super powers. Signing an agreement is just the beginning. While his counterparts perform their duties he withholds his own performance and uses the resulting stress to extract further concessions. It is likewise with respect to litigation. As long as final judgment has not been entered, the field of play is his to manipulate and dominate. This is the only theory which explains why he did not fall in line behind the HoA long ago and happily accept his share of the OC's 50%. To this day Joe Ford can probably blackboard a scenario where he comes out ahead in a post-HoA world. We mere mortals cannot see it, but that's our weakness and his strength.

IMHO

 

I read the other site’s update for the up coming London Hearing on October 19. Glad there is someone with current info. Seems to me this case should be interesting to all Ferrari owners, on how an superficial agent (like Joe Ford) can cost you an arm and a leg once they go rogue, as Joey did. I read all his posts contained in this entire thread, and boy oh boy….how this all happened is beyond the understanding of anyone posting on this site.

Now that the Arbitration Award is final, it clearly shows that Gardner was given the parts, because, of failed litigation, and Ford and Ms. Lawson conspired to harm both Swaters and Gardner and now they seem to me, are trapped. This hearing, from what I gather, is an attempt to prove if both the Ohio title and the Ohio settlement was valid, thus, could be proving that Les Wexner has the only valid ownership document from his purchase at the Bonhams Auction. The Lawson and the Ford claim against that title appears to be a slander on the valid ownership of Wexner. Further seems that Gardner’s role, as declared with the court ordered award, was that of a principle and further Ford was only operating as his fiduciary.

So, my question is this: "When does a rogue agent (such as Daniels and Ford) become liable for malice in self dealing acts that are causing damage to all the parties in this case?"

My other question is this: "While Ford was deemed penniless and with no assets what-so-ever, are the parties supporting the funding of his legal fiascos in London liable?" (Those parties being the lawyers in Ohio who are funding this, plus, both the Ford sons who claim to have paid out $1,000,000 since the hand over of the Ferrari parts in September 2013 for auction.)

Any feedback for me on that?

 

Word on the "other site" is that Ford is without Council and representing himself next week.

Judge Flaux vs Joe (not a man to be cheated in Court) Ford.........not to be missed

 

Wow! If recording devices of any kind are permitted, I beg you.

>8^)
ER

 

There is a strict ban on photography and filming although two years ago, they gave permission for selected cases to be televised in the High Courts.

The pilot scheme has not been without problems
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

A decorum-improving suggestion for Justice Flaux, from the Egyptian courts:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

FYI ;My first post was #304 of 10/20/2010 Later after several more posts of general interest is post of 8/20/2013 #862.I ended this with"My guess is we haven't seen the end of this by a long shot". From time to time I do get something right. I still never play the lottery but for what it is, this post carries many issues to be taken seriously and avoided where ever possible. tonga's crew

 

A few more days until the Monday October 19th hearing. More details on the other site but Lawson (daughter of Kleve) is no longer attending. Strange. If you claimed sole ownership of the multi-million dollar Ferrari via estate / inheritance -- wouldn't you want to be there personally to make the legal case before the UK judge to get it rightfully returned?

 

It's a pincer attack, Joe Ford style, intended to delay and to extract concessions. Joe Ford appears in pro. per. at the mini-trial -- bewigged and be-robed? -- and tries to run out the clock on the two days that Justice Flaux has allocated for the ownership mini-trial. If this fails -- as it surely will -- and Justice Flaux enters judgment for Florence Swaters, Kristi Lawson attacks the result in Ohio, claiming lack of jurisdiction. This requires her to overlook the fact that she has personally pleaded a request for an adjudication of the ownership issue in the London court; that she personally failed to file a timely attack on London jurisdiction over the ownership issue; that she personally filed an application for relief from her positive pleadings and her default, which was denied; that she personally failed to appeal that order to deny; and that she personally agreed in the HoA that "This Agreement shall be governed by English law." Kristi Lawson's serial perjuries, pretexts, and frivolous litigation tactics on this side of the Atlantic are unlikely to travel well.

 

The London title mini hearing was in order to simplify the subsequently lengthy and expensive hearings on the HoA on the basis that if Swaters is found to own the car, then Bonhams can convey title to Wexner and Ford/Lawson are unlikely to continue their claim that the HoA is invalid (turkeys voting for Christmas senario as this is the only agreement that gives them a share of the proceeds)

Lawson bailing out at this very late stage, having already spent her money on expert witnesses, reports and filings, is a likely reflection of her confidence in her claim and yet another Ford, "game changing plan" to get the hearing back to the safety of endless litigation in Ohio.

Judge Flaux considered the endless litigation in Ohio to be "grotesque" and has already thrown out the Ford/Lawson attempt to get an injunction to stop the title being heard in London. Accordingly, I am not anticipating he will be very sympathetic to this latest manoeuvre .

Roll on Monday assuming somebody turns up

 

Cause list Monday, 19 October 2015

BUILDING COURT 8
Before MR JUSTICE FLAUX
At 10:30 AM (All Day)
Commercial Trial
Part Heard
CL-2014-000358 Bonhams 1793 Limited v. Ms Florence Swaters and others

 

Can anyone attend?

 

I'll be there

 

I might well join you. I'll let you know.

 

Supposed letter from Ford to Justice Flaux (aka "speed-bump") is posted on the other site. Wow. If true -- it will be an interesting Monday in court while Joe starts his next "NEW GAME PLAN"...

 

Out of curiosity, does anyone find it odd that a private email from Ford to Flaux would be posted there? I also find it odd that Ford would start using the goofy quotation marks for such a letter.

 

Odd indeed. Looks like a spoof letter to me although the use of CAPS and quotation marks is a Ford trait.

I am attending the hearing tomorrow and will report

 

Thank you. The alleged letter is quite damning, Judge Flaux might not like it... to say the least.

That said, given Joe's current position, wouldn't it be his best interest to stir stuff up? What does he has to loose?

 

Would be entertaining to learn just how long Joe's had that phone number ending in "0384".

Hope the trouble is worth your time today Kim. Thanks for continuing to follow up.

>8^)
ER

 

It looks like 'Max Vito' has a rather more highly developed sense of humour than some of the posters in this thread..