Didn't say I disagree with all she writes!
Hey Joey, Can we talk about Money? .come on let's do it. First though - That is one hell of a guess you made, a prediction within $1,000,000.00 on the Sotheby's auction sale of the 290MM was close enough. That amazes me you're so good at what you do .a freaking FERRARI expert. Ok .money matters. Why is there a $190,000.00 (one hundred and ninety thousand dollars) lien filed against all of the real estate that Kristie Kleve has on file with the public property registers in Cincinnati in the name of Joseph Ford? I see it was filed in March 2015. What's that for?? Do tell. Is that for further "Legal Services"? Glad to hear you activated your law "license". But, wasn't that in May 2015 ? Does that mean you plan to move back to Louisiana? Seriously, I need a pro like you. I have a need. And you would be the perfect guy. Happy Holidays .🎄✨
You guys have to admit, this puts anything in This American Life, The Moth Hour or any other pod cast to shame. It just the best. What a great book this would all make for someone who could really write.
Also missing from The World According to Ocean Joe is any understanding of the most fundamental principle of litigation: that when a claimant files a pleading alleging a thing to be true, and the adverse party denies that allegation, the claimant is deemed to have submitted that dispute to the court, and to have accepted the jurisdiction of the court to decide the dispute. Here are the allegations, as recited by Justice Flaux in his Judgment on the ownership issue, that Joe Ford and Kristi Lawson voluntarily submitted to his jurisdiction, in the Amended Defence and Counterclaim that they filed in July 2014 (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/swaters_v_lawson_judgment_final_10_11_15_read_-only.pdf, beginning at page 4): "The case of Ms Lawson and Mr Ford as pleaded by counsel then acting for them in relation to the issue whether Mr Swaters had acquired good title in the Car in March 1990 was set out in the Amended Defence and Counterclaim served on 6 July 2015. In summary, that case was that Mr Swaters had not acted in good faith because (i) he was an experienced dealer; (ii) this was the only unrestored Ferrari 375 Plus; (iii) prior to the purchase there had been a high profile criminal trial in Atlanta concerning the theft of the vehicle; (iv) the theft had also been covered in industry publications; (v) Mr Swaters was aware at the time of the purchase that there was an allegation that the car he was purchasing had been stolen in Ohio; (vi) the Car was being sold without its VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) plate; (vii) he purchased it at considerably below market value for the equivalent of less than U.S. $100,000 when its real value was about U.S. $500,000; (viii) there were irregularities in the documentation accompanying the Car including that the receipt for the sale to Mr Kruch was for a price of only U.S. $4,500, the bill of lading described it wrongly as “racing automobile parts” and the import declaration differed from the bill of lading and correctly described the Car but gave its value as U.S. $4,500; (ix) as part of the alleged purchase, Mr Swaters agreed that he would deal with any claims in the event a third party claimed to be the true owner; (x) shortly after the alleged purchase, Mr Swaters offered to purchase Mr Kleve’s rights to the Car for U.S. $85,000; (xi) not having obtained any such agreement with Mr Kleve, Mr Swaters subsequently arranged for the Car to be restored in Italy using the VIN 0394 which he knew to be incorrect; (xii) that in the premises there was at least reasonable doubt as to the true ownership and title of which Mr Swaters was on notice. * * * "In relation to the Settlement Agreement, the pleaded case as set out in the Amended Defence and Counterclaim was that there was no valid and binding settlement. The following allegations were advanced: (1) that Mr Kleve only ever agreed to enter a Settlement Agreement for a price of U.S. $3 million not the price of U.S. $625,000 set out on the first page of the Settlement Agreement and his offer to do so expired; (2) Mr Mark Daniels, the agent who concluded the Settlement Agreement on his behalf, did not have actual authority as a matter of New York law to conclude the Settlement Agreement for U.S. $625,000 because it was agreed between him and Mr Kleve that any actions taken by him were subject to Mr Kleve’s approval, the Settlement Agreement was concluded by Mr Daniels for his own benefit, not that of Mr Kleve and that the Limited Power of Attorney dated 18 August 1999 did not reflect the true scope of Mr Daniels’ authority; (3) Mr Daniels did not have apparent authority as a matter of New York law to conclude the Settlement Agreement because there were numerous irregularities which would have put a reasonable or prudent person on enquiry; and (4) there was no contract formed in respect of the Settlement Agreement because Mr Kleve’s offer made on 16 July 1999 was not accepted within a reasonable time as required by the New York Uniform Commercial Code and/or because Mr Lancksweert failed to make full payment to “Daniels for the benefit of Kleve and Daniels” as required by clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement. "The specific matters relied upon in support of the allegation that there were irregularities which would have put a reasonable person on enquiry are: (i) that Mr Philippe Lancksweert(Mr Swaters’ former business partner who negotiated and concluded the Settlement Agreement on his behalf) knew or should have known that Mr Daniels’ statement that the spare parts had been stolen was not true; (ii) that there were redacted signatures in the documentation presented by Mr Daniels on 1 September 1999; (iii) that there was a lapse of time of 44 days between Mr Kleve’s signature on 16 July 1999 and 2 September 1999, during which time the price of U.S. $625,000 was negotiated; (iv) that Mr Daniels was unable to produce the Power of Attorney referred to on the first page of the Settlement Agreement but only a letter of authority dated 18 June 1999 which required Mr Kleve’s consent before any agreement as to price was reached; (v) that Mr Daniels produced only a copy of the 18 August 1999 Power of Attorney which it is alleged had been fraudulently altered; (vi) that Mr Daniels requested two cheques to be paid over, one for U.S. $400,000 made out to Kleve and Daniels and one made out to National Search Services (“NSS”, Mr Daniels’ company, for U.S. $225,000; (vii) that Mr Daniels requested and Mr Lancksweert agreed to omit the identity of the escrow agent and (viii) that Mr Lancksweert demanded an affidavit from Mr Daniels concerning liability for any deficiency in his authority." [End of quoted material] I set out in such detail Justice Flaux's summary of the allegations that Joe Ford and Kristi Lawson voluntarily submitted for adjudication to the London High Court, to show how absurd it is for Ford and Lawson to contend that they did not submit to the Ownership Issue to the jurisdiction of that Court. Joe Ford has a currently pending frivolous appeal from Justice Flaux's rulings, on the basis of that absurd contention. It is evident that Kristi Lawson's rope-a-dope tactic not to participate in the trial of the Ownership Issue is also based on that absurd contention; that she -- and Joe Ford as well, no doubt -- intend to argue to the Ohio courts that the London Court's judgment on the ownership issue is void for lack of jurisdiction. As we see repeatedly in this saga, Ocean Joe's abject ignorance of the most fundamental principles of law continues to drive the narrative -- and to inflict on his adversaries millions of dollars of wasteful litigation costs.
180 Out - You make the classic mistake made by less-than-sharp attorneys - not checking dates. The amendments you quote as if submitting to jurisdiction were made after the loss on the 5 June 2015 hearing that contested jurisdiction. And when they were added they are added in the alterantive to the main claims/defenses. Unfortunately, you also make other mistakes in your claims and in your analysis. I think you should warn your readers with the same caveat you warned many moons ago. I urge all to wait for the appeal and appeal outcome. One of the appeal arguments is one of contract law and it is irrefutable. If you are good with contracts you can find it. Joe *
Unless and until Ocean Joe shares the language of the Defence and Counterclaim as it stood as of the date of the hearing on his frivolous challenge to jurisdiction over the Ownership Issue, we should assume that he's lying when he implies that it was substantially different than the post-hearing version.
Excelenté!!!! That is Joey's whole purpose. Keep filing frivolous lawsuits to drive everyone involved insane, give all the lawyers a meal ticket forever, and empty their clients Bank Accounts. He's acting like a scorned woman who's been annihilated by a nuclear divorce. As soon as CG found out Joe was skimming money off the top and telling lies (re: Bill Whitman's withdrawal letter), CG cut him off. Now, he's getting even. CG was Joey's only income for decades, and every deal ended in disaster. And .he was paid extremely well, $400/hr. plus expenses for "legal fees". Joe never paid taxes on any of that income, and he's still unemployed. Imagine, there are 20 lawyers, Judges, solicitors and QCs in London being run around in circles by little Joey, a guy with zero assets, except for one non-running, rusty MG. None of those lawyers are about to kill that Golden Goose. The only thing effecting the value of that 375 Plus - is, was, and will be, is Joseph L. Ford III the unsinkable !
I reviewed my collection of the pdf documents that had been linked to from The Other Site and I found a Defence and Counterclaim that Ford and Lawson had filed in January 2015, in a case captioned as Bonhams vs. Lawson and Ford. As expected, the substance of the allegations that Ford and Lawson submitted to the jurisdiction of the London Court in that Defence and Counterclaim is identical to the substance of the allegations that Justice Flaux quoted from the Amended Defence and Counterclaim dated July 2015: "6. . . . It is averred that the Car was in fact purchased by Mr Kleve on 20 March 1958 and was stolen from Mr Kleve on 13 January 1989. The part not stolen remained in the possession of the Kleve family – OC Components. No admissions are made in relation to the balance of paragraph 5. 7. . . . On 16 July 1999 Mr Kleve signed a three page offer to sell. The version of the document signed by Mr Swaters’ agent was altered, as scientifically proved by Ms Swaters own forensic documents expert. Accordingly, there was no settlement. This issue is part of the Ohio Litigation. 8. . . . t is denied that Mr Swaters or Ms Swaters were owners of the Car. Given that the Car was stolen from Mr Kleve, they could not acquire title to the Car and/or any title or rights in relation to the Car superior to the rights of the Defendants. Also at no point did or could Ms Swaters acquire title to the OC Components. These points are the subject of separate court proceedings in Ohio. * * * 10. . . . In the [Ohio] Swaters Action Mr and Mr Swaters falsely claimed that the OC Components were part of the (alleged) 1999 Settlement. However, on 16 July 2010 Phillipe Lancksweert admitted under oath that the OC Components were never part of the (alleged) 1999 Settlement. * * * 12. . . . t is denied that Mr Swaters had any interest in the Car. * * * 128. In the light of the Defendants’ pleaded case and request for relief set out above, that the Heads of Agreement contract has come to an end by misrepresentation and rescission and/or frustration and/or repudiatory breach and acceptance, the Defendants request an order that Bonhams deliver up the Car to them and that the Defendants reimburse Ms Swaters for expenses incurred for the purchase and installation of the original engine of which Ms Swaters is indisputably the owner. * * * AND THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM: * * * (4) An order for delivery up of the Car by Bonhams to the Defendants, or alternatively such parts of the Car other than those in respect of which Ms Swaters is undisputedly the owner."
I'd be interested in hearing opinions on how Wexner can fail in the upcoming litigation against Bonhams. I understand that Bonhams, in their marketing prior to the auction, made claims to the effect that '“all relevant litigation had been settled”; and that Bonhams knew of “no reason why . . . the buyer should not be able to register title in . . . the USA.” If correct, that seems pretty cut and dry. Considering that the ownership question has only recently been resolved (and found to be different to what it was assumed to be at the time of the auction) how does that now fit with the statement that '“all relevant litigation had been settled”. And what about the title in Ohio? That appears to be another problem.
If the HOA was still valid at the time of the auction then Bonhams were correct to state that all litigation had been settled and that title went to the buyer. The ownership was still in dispute, but the dispute set aside under the terms of the HOA. If the London Court finds the HOA sill to have been valid at the time of auction then the sellers (BC and OC) transfer ownership and title (including in Ohio) to Wexner, though of course Joe will no doubt then try to resurrect it all in the Ohio courts ;-) Whether Wexner then has a case for damages for delay in getting title, and which party that claim would be against, I really don't know. As I said, the issue of ownership had not been settled at the time of the HOA or the auction, but now has been. But the HOA, if valid, would I suggest take precedence over that. If the HOA is found to be invalid then Wexner may well have a case for damages against Bonhams.
Once again: "Our legal boys say the deal's ok in their opinion but could be illegal in the view of other equally competent lawyers"
That's what Ford/Lawson claim and Bonhams/Swaters dispute. The wording of the HOA is not precise. The court in London will decide.
The HOA may "settle" the dispute between OC and BC for the purpose of the auction but that did not cover the assertion by Zanotti. We have also seen inferences that Guy Anderson may have been trying to make claims too. Neither of those claims would appear to fall under the HOA.
Agreed. But the London Court has already dismissed both the Zanotti and Anderson claims to ownership.
But those are post auction decisions. Did the London court actually rule against Anderson? I must have missed that reporting.
It was brought up 10 days ago at the last case management conference hearing ammendments to pleadings for the main trial next year. Judge Flaux said that he had received an email from Anderson but that as he was not a plaintiff in the case and had not been called as a witness by any party his claim had no standing and that he had ignored the email. Ford tried to claim that Anderson had emailed Bonhams in Nov 13 and that Bonhams had suppressed the email. Judge Flaux told him that was tantamount to an unsubstantiated accusation of fraud which is a serious accusation and that Ford should tread carefully doing so as he had produced no evidence to properly articulate this as an ammendment to his pleading and therefore refused right to include Anderson's claim. Yes - those are post auction decisions but Anderson had made no claim prior to auction (other than the alleged Nov 13 email which Judge Flaux dismissed for reasons above). I think it was about that point that the Bonham's counsel described Ford's pleadings to be "legally illiterate" which Judge Flaux concurred with and advised Ford yet again that he really should for his own good seek proper UK legal representation. Whether or not Anderson did have any realistic claim (and it is strange that it has taken him 25 years to make a claim) it was never going to succeed at this late stage without "proper legal articulation" as Judge Flaux put it. Just checking my notes further. Judge Flaux did say that if Ford properly articulated the Anderson claim the court would consider it. Zanotti has not submitted any ownership claim to the court.
Francis, the HoA was a unilateral contract, entered into by five parties, that was valid, acted on and had not expired. Three of the parties (including one from the OC) performed, and two didnt. Just because Joe is shouting foul does not stop the contract from being valid under English Law and it only gives rise to a claim for damages and not for cancellation. The Judge threw out Joes claim to have it cancelled for misrepresentation by his partner Gardner and there is no cancellation clause in the HoA agreement. In the interest of fairness, Justice Flaux may have dismissed Gardners universally supported (including Wexner) application for summary judgement on the HoA in order to give Joe his day in Court but I see this as only delaying the inevitable day that puts an end to the Ohio litigation coffin. Game plan, Master plan or No Idea Plan, Joe will continue to ignore the advise of the Judge (who he accuses of being biased anyway) and the money that is on the table, appeal everything and press to have the HoA cancelled. Although I have every sympathy for those that are having to fund the cost of the litigation, I do hope we have a conclusion to the story at a hearing in the Spring. For me, the big mystery that remains to be answered is the participation of Wexner/Carpenter before and after the auction
King Arthur [after slicing one of the Black Knight's arms off]: Now stand aside, worthy adversary. Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch. King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off. Black Knight: No it isn't. King Arthur: What's that, then? Black Knight: [after a pause] I've had worse. https://youtu.be/ikssfUhAlgg
