Yes. The "0384" number is his correct cell number, it's ringing in London. 🇬🇧 And he is now licensed to practice law. So, give Ocean Joe a call. He needs a new client.😶
Justice Flaux kept pace today and I anticipate it all be concluded tomorrow. I have reprinted my notes of the proceedings below and I appologise for the shorthand. Lawson has disclaimed jurisdication in London and also claims she does not have the money for the hearing which is ironic given that Tim Smith is working for free and she has the money for a lengthy second hearing on the HoA and to return to Ohio. Getting the case back to Ohio and keeping the plates spinning is the obvious Ford game changing plan. My guess is that Swaters will be awarded the title and Ford will challenge the ruling in Ohio claiming that London did not give them a fair hearing and they should have only looked at the HoA. Otherwise, the big surprise today is that the attorney Tim Smith has suddenly announced he had a Ferrari file in his basement with all of Kleves documents (no bank statements though) and that Kleve told him he never signed an agreement for $625,000. Funny Smith never did anything about it and equally funny that Joe never mentioned this in the thread. Roll on day two ! Day One. Monday 19th October Court 8 title hearing before Justice Flaux. In attendance: Joe Ford (representing himself) and his “friend” Attorney Tim Smith. Florence Swaters and legal team. Kristi Lawson had declined to take part. No Chris Gardner but attorney Zac Gottesman. Bonhams and Wexner legal teams present. Order of the day: Opening remarks from Ford and Swaters Council followed by oral evidence from Swaters, Lanckesweert, Tim Smith, Ford and experts on New York and Belgium Law. The parties agreed that no experts witnesses were required for the forensic reports Swaters Council opening remarks. History of the car and Jacques Swaters. Story in 1989 of Belgium dealer buying a wreck in good faith from Anderson (acquitted of theft). Discovering it was stolen and voluntarily surrendering the car to the Belgium authorities for investigation and they subsequently released 0384AM for the dealers free use (Justice Flaux has a good command of the French language and points out that the actual translation gives a legal right not just a release). The release and purchase in good faith by Swaters is a central issue to be determined. Throughout the opening remarks Ford is like a coiled spring putting his hand up wishing to speak. Confusion on the identity so Swaters commissions an xray on the chassis that suggests the middle digit is either 8 or 9. In February 1990 Kleve is invited to make submission to Belgium to claim car but does nothing so the 3 year cut off rule applies. Swaters conscious that Kleve still had a claim and appoints NY lawyers to negotiate a settlement with Daniels under his POA and executes an agreement in 1999 for 625k with other supporting documents including a bill of sale, theft release and transfers of title. Ford now says a fraud but expert says genuine and no evidence of alteration so Ford now shifts his claim that Daniels not authorized under his POA. August 1999 POA gave Daniels authority and supersedes any other POA and Ford now claiming that is a fraud too. (Justice Flaux notes that the notary certificates were given only two days before signing and Ford cannot produce the claimed restricted POA). 1999 Settlement was for the rights to the car as a whole including the parts but Daniels claimed the parts were stolen at the time so they were never delivered. Swaters spent time looking for the parts as described in the Auction shipping invoice with a Lawson probate value of $25k. 30 minutes. Ford statement. Justice Flaux highlights that Ford is not a witness as he only has opinion on the issues and was not involved at the time but happy to hear and will take account of weight of testimony. Ford wants an hour for his statement like Swaters and Justice Flaux points to clock and says he only used half an hour. States that the FBI consider the sale was a “sham” a “ruse’ that car was renumbered 0394am. Swaters knew the real identity and that others were prosecuted and it was not fair to say Kleve did nothing. Daniel POA was dated after the signature and cannot be retroactive to over previous misdeeds. Parts not defined and excluded from the Settlement agreement. Reads June 1989 Cavallino regarding the theft of 0384AM. Stan Novak used by FBI in prosecution of Anderson and established value the value as $500k. Claims Swaters involved before Belgium dealer purchase and the documents are a “sham to conceal the Mona Lisa” with a counterfeit vin. Tells Justice Flaux to “please ask us for consultation as very complicated and Flaux replies that he can read. 30 minutes. Florence Swaters sworn in and confirms her statements with no questions from her Council. Ford cross examination. What is a vin plate and is my picture accurate - yes. What is a bitsa - don't know. Confirms that she had no involvement before 2004 and all information is from documents her father and Lanckesweert. Never seen the adverts about theft and was not aware of the various documents vin plate, bill of sale or dealer. Not seen communication from a Mr Seabrook to her father saying the car was stolen with build sheets confirming it to be 0384AM. Justice Flaux highlights the confusion over the numbering and warns Ford about making unsubstantiated fraud allegations. Swaters unaware when her father first discovered the car was stolen. Not seen April 1990 letter about the Belgium dealer asking $1m although the sale in March for less. 2005. Keith Bluemel gave report saying Kleve was not paid – Swaters claim he was helping her father looking for the parts. Why did she move the car to Belgium and then London against Ohio orders – lawyers. Restoration invoices have 0394 on it indicating intention to hide the car and letters to Kleve show he was getting the run around from Belgium. Ford starts asking question on the HoA and is slapped down as not being part of this hearing. Swaters radio interview about a famous car and being stolen. Unaware how a letter from the FBI to the factory about 0394AM dated Oct 1994 came to her father. S does not know when or if the car was renumbered and if he deliberately did it. Believes the 1990 Cavallino value of $3m could be true for a fully restored car but her father was the only one to pay 100k S and Fords $500k was only a reference value depends. 55 minutes. Lanckesweert testimony. Confirms statement with no questions from Council. Ford cross examination. The 1999 agreement states that Kleve is the owner as an inducement for him to sign. Justice Flaux disagrees. L was a co owner and was the representative living in LA from 1996 to 1999 did not know the car was listed as stolen. Kleve aware of joint owners and the deal was to settle years of arguments. Never told $3m by Daniels, Only interested in vin pates but did not agree that parts were excluded and pre contract negotiations are not relevant. Ford points out that the contract was only for what was stolen and there was no verification of price with Kleve price was dropped from $750k to $625k our problem was Kleve and not arrangement between agent and principal leaving that to lawyers. Never received a call from Kleve or family so assumed happy. L didn't hire an Ohio lawyer because NY advising. Justice Flaux what is the relevance of Ohio when the car was in Belgium there was a bill of sale transferring everything and was clearly getting annoyed by the lectures on NY and Ohio law. Question why the Daniels document of Sept 1999 requiring him to return any monies if no deal was not in the completion pack. Why required and was evidence they had suspicions on Daniels but never called Kleve. L states that a dealer with their reputation would not knowingly buy a stolen car. 55 minutes and break for lunch. Tim Smith verified affidavit and Justice Flaux allowed Ford to “amplify on his statement”. Smith had referred Kleve to another contract lawyer and had never drafted any contract for him. Kleve recorded all conversation as worried about being cheated. Swaters Council Cross examination. Why did Smith submitted an injunction even though a UK court order. S does not agree for title to be determined in and agrees with the Lawson letter claiming London has no jurisdiction over Ohio but claims to have no knowledge if Lawson going to act against the court order (the next game changing plan). Smith was aware of the Kleve negotiations but did not act on 1999 formally. He referred Kleve to a contract lawyer who was not acting but Daniels was making enquirers. Not acting but put together a Ferrari file during the Kleve negotiations. Question raised doubts has to how when this file was created and how it escaped distruction. Documents being disclosed but not in his statement. Claims that Kleve told him he has an offer of $2.5m for a Dean Butler and that Swaters had offered $750k he then came back with a deal for $3m in a document. Questions unanswered on Smiths recollection of original documents, statement and who had made manuscript amendments on the documents all not in his statement. Would a prudent lawyer sign an amendment - S don't know. Smith confirms a State suspension as an attorney for 10 years up to 2013 and then a month later represented Lawson. Revelation that Kleve told him he did not agree of sign a document for $625K. Smith confirms he represented Ford in the arbitration but not mentioned in his statement. Represented Lawson since 2013 but no one is paying his bills although he will get a share if Fords get some money but nothing agreed and he is not expecting it. Ford resumes questioning Smith and making allegations. Justice FLaux rebukes with you and Ms Lawson have submitted to the jurisdiction of my Court, you may not ike it but please show respect. 45 minutes Ford sworn in on the bible but beeing so honest he asked to do it twice on a bible and an affirmation (Flaux declined). Swaters Council cross examination. Confirmed he was a Louisiana attorney for a couple of months not Ohio or NY. Now a consultant helping to think things through. Before 2010 confirms no involvement and never met Kleve therefore Council not going to cross examination on anything before his involvement. Ford “I am an encyclopedia on this case but my client does not accept your comments on anything”. Two Classic car dealerships claimed in his statement but the 2013 Ohio affidavit claims different dates. Sold over 200 cars in his statement but Ohio 2010 says 150. Described as expert but email to terry Myers keeps referring to 0834AM. McKinnis statement that ford handles litigation denied only organising. Lawson 2006 title application for a duplicate but they were not in possession of the car - Ford says mistake. Ohio expert sets out code for expert ford but he also applied for a cert with a blank buyers address even though expert says mandatory. Ford classic reply “I resent the way you interpreted other forms you are wrong and not paying attention to what I am saying”. The Kruse Auction advert never itended and only put in as a teaser and her attorney valued the parts at only 25k for probate. Ford claims “all covered in Ohio which is why this is a waste of time we should speak to Ohio”. Considers 0384AM is a replica without the DNA parts. Garner agreement held out as attorney according to the arbitration – Ford disagreed. Who pays your legal bills ? Borrowing from my son with no agreement but percentage override Like Tim Smith not a legal agreement. 40 minutes. Mr Kim NY legal expert. Altered documents would not be authentic. Certified originals are OK in deals this size Notary only confirms a document is original not if it si authentic. Believes the 1999 Agreement is ok. The POA relevant at the date of completion applies. 20 minutes. The session ended at 4:45
So is the lack of updates mean that it is still ongoing or things went different than what has been alluded to?
Ford was asking all the questions so my guess is Swaters expert although it could be a joint appointment
Good to meet you for the fist time at the court this afternoon Kim. By Kim I guess you mean Kierman (spelling?) who seemed to be the Bonham's/Swaters NY legal expert witness and who was testifying again this morning, and who stood up well to Ford, asserting that it was not incumbent on the third party to ascertain distribution of funds between a primary and his agent upon contract. Ford's NY law expert did far less well. At the start he was pretty much shredded by the Bonham counsel on his experience, seemingly not even able to answer properly how long he had been in practice (it was either 2012 or 2011 but even that was unclear) and the extent of his supposed client base. It got worse when he was cross-examined on some of his referred case precedences (he was trying to argue legal precedence for Ohio because Kleve was an Ohio resident, despite the 1990 agreement being subject to NY law) but was continually shot down by the Bonham counsel. Anyway - during summing up Judge Flaux described him as the worst expert witness he had ever encountered. I felt sorry for the poor guy sitting there. He was totally out of his depth. I'll leave reporting of the afternoon session to Kim (Enigma Racing) who took far more notes than I did. Joe came and said hello to the two of us afterwards and was pleasant enough. He asked if I was a car nut. Well - yes I am btw - it was a bit obvious with all the suited lawyers around us! I also said hello to Florence Swaters and told her how I had met her father briefly 20 or so years ago and how gracious he had been. She thanked me for saying hello. All in all an interesting day. First time I have been to a court. Justice Flaux had a great grasp of the case and ran it very efficiently. We await his judgement and the next instalment on 4th Dec - though who knows what will happen between now and then.
This morning was taken up with Fords NY legal expert who was described by Justice Flaux as the worst expert witness that had come before him and he had seen quite a few. None of the fraud, inducements and bad practice theories perpetrated by the NY lawyers or Notaries were substantiated The afternoon session was for the summing up of the case by both Florence Swaters Council and Joe Ford and there was a marked difference between the two. Swaters Council presented substantiated arguments from a prepared script supporting the validity of the Belgium purchase, 1999 Settlement agreement and the lack of evidence to prove Kleve was not paid. Conversely, Ford was unprepared and gave opinions with little evidence. His best arguments were lost amongst unsubstantiated claims or references to documents that had not been disclosed and he also missed his opportunity to raise these issues with questions to Lanckesweert when he was on the stand. Unwisely, he consistently annoyed Justice Flaux with his suggestion that any witness and expert who disagreed with him was being deliberately misleading or guilty of hiding the truth and was rebuked on numerous occasions. Given that it is Justice Flaux is the one that makes a judgement based on the submissions, Joe was not endearing himself to him. Ford repeated his claim that he was winning in Ohio and was now being penalised in a London Court and believes that London has no jurisdiction to determine title. Justice Flaux reminded him that the parties, including him, agreed at the case management hearing that the title should be determined first, he had accepted that, did not appeal and has also submitted a claim to title in London. To me there was little doubt on the outcome of the hearing however, Justice Flaux reserved his decision to a later date. I was surprised by this but concluded that he wanted more time to review the mountain of documentation and ensure that any order was watertight to ensure there was no opportunity for the judgement to go back to Ohio. The interesting question to be considered is what happens next if the title and parts are awarded to Swaters ? Firstly, Bonhams can convey title to Wexner and his recession of auction contract claim falls away. Secondly, Wexners damage claim against Swaters and Gardner fails as he got what was promised and arguably took action against the wrong perpetrators. Thirdly, and most importantly, if Ford and Lawson have no interest in the title then the only way they will get any money is under the HoA and the problem is that they have claimed that this has expired. Consequently, to get their share of the proceeds, they will need to drop their legal action on the HoA with the consequence that the Court will award costs against them. I met up with Joe after the hearing and he was surprisingly unfazed by the events of the last two days. The Florida arbitration awarded him 50% of the OC proceeds which equates to £2.3m out of which he has to pay Lawson 30% (£690), the Gardner arbitration award (~£300), his own costs and now what ever costs are awarded against him. Given that £3m has already been spent on legal costs and there is still Zanotti to sort out there is a large risk there will be nothing left at the end of all this. Image Unavailable, Please Login
In American courts at least it would be surprising for the judge to make his ruling at the hearing. I expect that Justice Flaux heard new facts and new arguments and was cited to new law during this two day proceeding, and will want to review these things and resolve each disputed issue one by one, before making a ruling. This is standard practice. I also expect that Justice Flaux's opinions of the Ohio proceedings, and of Joe Ford, Kristi Lawson, and Tim Smith, is that there is very little he can do to control their subsequent behavior stateside. Also IMHO the Ohio courts have heard and seen enough from Joe Ford et al and will happily enter final judgment on whatever it is that is delivered to them from London. The First District Court of Appeals, in its March 11, 2015 ruling on the second Ford-Lawson appeal wrote that, if the HoA survives its London sojourn then there will be nothing left for the Ohio courts to do. The Court of Appeals also wrote that, "if the London court determines that the agreement is not enforceable, then the parties are free to proceed in Hamilton County on the underlying claims." Not known to the Court of Appeals when it wrote this -- because it had not yet happened -- was that Ford and Lawson would file an affirmative counterclaim with the London court to adjudicate "the underlying claims," and to grant appropriate relief. Based on the principle of res judicata, aka issue preclusion, the London court's response to that affirmative request for relief will be binding on Ford and Lawson in Ohio. In short, there is no loophole left in Ohio for Ford and Lawson to exploit. Swaters will essentially register the London judgment in Ohio and that will be the end of the Ohio case of Swaters v. Lawson and Ford.
I am sure you are right Bill but I am minded that the very first question to Tim Smith, the architect of the failed injunction in Ohio, was if Lawson had intention to act against the London order. Ford, Smith and Lawson have all stated they are being disadvantaged by not hearing the HoA first and this was the only ruling that was contemplated by the agreement as every thing else (including the title) was stayed in Ohio. Court orders or not, Joe was described in Court as a "trafficker of litigation" but I see him more as the legal equivalent to the fairground game of "whack a mole" for his ability to keep popping up. In the absence of any other game changing plans I see he and Lawson's best option is to do a deal and preserve what is left of their share as I am sure the other parties are not relishing the prospect of yet more expensive litigation against people who appear to have increasingly little to lose in the UK and nothing to lose in Ohio.
Retail Billionaire sues Bonhams. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/victorias-secret-boss-les-wexner-suing-bonhams-after-being-sold-stolen-1954-ferrari-375plus-for-11m-a3094881.html
May I commend to you and anyone who has not seen it the thread about this that has been running for about ten years now and now includes eye-witness accounts of the court proceedings http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/114840-375-0384-a.html
No problem. I enjoyed attending the the hearing as it was an opportunity to meet all of the charactures. Florence Swaters, Lanckesweert, Joe Ford and Tim Smith were all there as was Zac Gottesman on behalf of his client Gardner. Even the colourful Max Vito turned up and true to his word, he paid for the round of drinks in the pub after the hearing. Roll on the case managment hearing on the 4th December unless an outbreak of common sense occurs !!
A good place to ask these questions 1-Buying a Ferrari from auction- if the car is undoubtedly proven stolen after it has been bought - is it the duty of the car auction room to refund the full payment ??? 2-How safe is it to buy from an auction? 3-Are you fully protected on Ebay ? 4-Is there a list of approved Ferrari assessment experts/engineers going around --- obviously know about Marcel ? Thank you for your answers
ROLLS BUILDING COURT 8 Before MR JUSTICE FLAUX Friday 6 November 2015 At 09:00 AM Application Hearing CL-2014-000358 Bonhams 1793 Limited v. Ms Florence Swaters and others
STOLEN property of any kind CANNOT be legally sold ... it doesn't matter if it is a Ferrari or any other type of property... it doesn't matter who is trying to make the sale, they do not own the property, they have nothing to transfer... there are no time limits to expire, as an example the police recently identified a Corvette stolen 40+ years back, resulting from vin issues, from efforts to correctly ID the car, showed the car stolen... subsequently the car was returned to original owner...
Maybe it is good, after 100+ pages of bickering to reread this..... Old Guy is no longer here, but he knew where the bones were buried. I respect his opinion. It feels like the winds are going to blow in the Belgian contingent's favor, from the sound of it.
Your opinion certainly has equal value with me..!!! At some point it seems Karl Kleve lost his grip on reality, as happens more often than we like to contemplate. Still, it worked out better than Shakespeare and his Bugattis!
All very well, but the London court case is to decide whether the 1999 sale of the car took place and was legal. As far as I understand it if the court decides that the sale took place then it is no longer a stolen car, (whether or not it was under Belgian law) whatever happened before or after. Whether or not that is the end of the matter is another point, and as Enigma has written, depends on how Joe persuades the Ohio court to act. We await Judge Flaux's decision.
