375+ # 0384

Pretty strong allegations at a member with a great reputation. I say that is a personal attack and a ban is in order. But, like a weed, this one may appear again.

Perry

 

Cindy

I do not know what world you are in, nor your motive.

Max Vito, Pete Schomer is a known crook, I got taken on a gearbox that did not exist.

I have nothing to prove, especially to you.

Good news, one less person ever to communicate with in my life.


Moderators ???


Thank you

 

I think I have seen all the FBI reports, even the handwritten ones made in the field, and none mention you.

IMHO, MBZGurl = Christopher Gardner = Max Vito = metalfinder = onebugatti = paraquat = reproman = neil dubois = . . . geeze, did I forget any of his alter egos?

I too wish the moderator would ban MBZGurl.

Joe

*

 

mbzgurl quotes an FBI report to have stated "Tom bought stolen parts from a Mr. Trout, taken off of Karl Kleve". She suggests that this reference to a "Tom 'Doe'" is a reference to Tom S. You, Ocean Joe, could clear the air completely if you would post that no such sentence appears in any FBI report of which you are aware. Or if this sentence does appear in an FBI report, you could show that it does not refer to Tom S., for example by posting jpegs of the report, or by quoting the relevant statement more fully. I'm not suggesting that Tom S. needs this kind of backup, rather that it would be easy for you to do this and clear the air completely.

 

Wayne,

Curious if Cindy has responded

Obviously nothing posted here.

No apologies my direction either public or privately.

Just following up.

Thank you

 

Post 3226 April 2015 http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143891180-post3226.html

I watched 0674 get knocked down at the Artcurial auction with an American auctioneer (No fan of Bonhams) and our conversation turned to 0384 and why he believed this dispute would only be settled by the court. In short, Mr Wexner is a man of principle and he believes he has been wronged by Bonhams. Now I admire anyone, including Mr Wexner, for being a man of principle in the same way I admire his loyalty to his agent who clearly did not do is job. What I do not understand is why this man of principal chose to ignore the advise they were getting, including Bonhams, so soon after the auction, in favour of collaborating with Joe Ford and accepting the same old arguments they had already seen and had discounted by them before the auction.

I agreed with Bill's prediction that common sense would prevail and matters would be resolved without the expense of litigation but I am now left wondering what went wrong and why and what would have happened if Wexner had taken his fantastic (and comparatively inexpensive car) back to Ohio.

What went wrong and why ?

IMHO the wrong was that Wexner/Copely instructed Mishcon (a legal firm with the reputation for aggression) to park their tanks up on Bonhams lawn far too early. Carpenter reads PhatBoy aka Ray Lawsons post on Saturday 5th July 2014 and Mishcons are asking for the money back by the Tuesday. No colloboration or discussion just straight in the trenches with the tin hats on

IMHO the why is because Copley needed someone to blame for their own incompetence. Wexner was loyal to his agent others would have taken legal action of negligence. Read the extracts from the emails before the auction attached to 180 Out’s post

31st March 2014 from Carpenter
• “no understatement that the ownership situation has been more that a bit muddled”
• “would like to have a conversation with one of the attorneys”
• “I am doing due diligence so that I may or may not become more comfortable on my clients behalf”

5th April 2014 from David Clark (amusingly signed “By Joseph Ford” at the end) for the principal issues
Ownership:
• “2012 to date Joseph Ford adds Kristi Kleve name on the title thus now Joseph Ford and Kristi Lawson are now the owners”
• “the Ohio BMV has an unbroken title chain”
Settlement of Lawsuit A1001370:
• “Bonhams contract to sell expired in Sept 2013”

What would have happened if Wexner had taken the car ?

IMHO Nothing

Ford was always going to appeal/dispute/disagree whatever the outcome and cooperation between all parties would have been a better course of action. Wexner would not have gone to jail for cancelling the clearly fraudulent title and registering his car in Ohio and the litigation that was already in progress in the agreed jurisdiction in London would have extinguished anything Ford could have done in the US. Florence Swaters has the title and I believe the validity of the HOA will follow resulting in the Ohio litigation being dismissed.

Where now ?

This is going to trial as all of the parties have entrenched positions and accepted the cost of seeing this out to the end. Accuse me of schadenfreude if you will but I am looking forward to watching this one to the end

 

Dear Tom,
A thousand apologies for not getting this to you sooner, but, was unable to do so due to the veto (not Vito). Anyway, I feel horrible. I did not mean any harm, I thought I was just asking a question, not meaning to accuse you. I honestly made no unsubstantiated attack on another user. I am sure you where offended, and I am sorry about that, I didn’t think you'd take the question so personal.

I read the 375 Plus FBI report 4 years ago and thought a Tom was mentioned, and mistakenly thought it was Tom Shaughnessy –My mistake, – sorry. Actually, it was Mike who bought the stolen parts, this is where I boo-boo'd. I just confused you with Michael Sheehan who, I meant to say as reflected in that FBI report. He bought the 375 Plus parts from Gary Trout of Cincinnati, and they were returned to Kleve in 1988. It goes on to say (1986) that "Sheehan placed an ad in Ferrari Market Letter that the parts are stolen".

Plus, I've been unwell and my mind wasn't totally clear, not realizing how sick I was when I wrote it. I found myself racked-up in a hospital bed with my arms tied unable to respond.
Sorry . . . .

Please accept my sincere apology,

Cynthia



P:S: Strange, someone told me Joey Ocean posted an immediate attack on me hours later which I expected. He knew the answer to the FBI report right away, yet, he concealed it from the board to make me look bad – when he could have been forthright and honest, corrected me and if not for me (in my abscence), for Tom Shaughnessy. I assure you, I am not Chris Gardner, as per whatever Joey O. thinks!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'm curious - do you really believe Joey owes you any favors here? I must admit laughing a little at the notion he would/should come to your rescue.

>8^)
ER

 

Moderator,

I urge you to make it a permanent ban.

At the bottom of the whole page that "she" posted is the following which was omitted:

"03.01.12 Confidential Attorney-Cleint Communication - Joseph L. Ford III (c) 2011"

How did "she" get it?

Joe

*

 

Joe complaining about the misuse and posting of confidential documents !!!!

Breathtaking hypocrisy

 

Daily list for Friday, 26 February 2016
In the High Court of Justice - Admiralty and Commercial Court

ROLLS BUILDING COURT 8
Before MR JUSTICE FLAUX
At 10:00 AM. CMC
CL-2014-000358 Bonhams 1793 Limited v. Ms Florence Swaters and others

Joe, are you, Kristi or your financier Tim Smith coming ?

 

I see from Court Service List we are in Court 8 tomorrow. There is another case in Justice Flaux's court listed for 9am, we are 10AM

 

Joe can you clarify who in this instance was acting as the "Attorney" and was he licenced to do so ?

 

December 2015

Are you still feeling confident Joe ?

I will give my court report later

 

Yesterdays hearing was unexpectedly short but illuminating with a different atmosphere in the Court room. There were the usual three QC’s, leading the proceedings; Hirst for Swaters, Mill for Bonhams and Kitchener for Wexner with a phalanx of solicitors and a platoon of clerks in attendance. Proceedings were brisk and business like and from the mood of the hearing it is clear that this matter is heading for trial in seven weeks time.

Kitchener (Wexner) tried to outline the agenda but was interrupted by Justice Flaux who “wanted to cut to the chase about the timetable” and made it clear that he did not want the case ‘to meander on” and wanted to start the week of 18th April and closed by the 19th May. Matters to be compressed to 16 days with Flaux undertaking to read the papers in advance “whatever pain this inflicts on my nearest and dearest”. The hearing would be transferred to a larger Court with Mr Ford in attendance as he would not be “allowed to conduct a trial by remote access from Ohio”. It was clear from the start that Justice Flaux remains determined to keep a tight rein on this case.

Kitchener then presented an application to complain about Mr Gardner redacting 21 (out of thousands) pieces of evidence which Flaux described as “a storm in a tea cup” and resulted in Gardners solicitor undertaking to review the redactions with the likelihood that they would all be un-redact and Wexner picking up the cost of Mishcon’s irrelevant application (the gravy train rolls on). Kitchener then requested permission to amend Wexners claim to incorporate damage that arise from a currency exchange loss. A discussion ensued with agreement that a decision could be reached in the first trial but that the quantum of any damages, if any, would be decided at a later, second trial. Given that Victoria Secrets flagship shop on Bond Street is less than 50 yards from Bonhams, I smiled at the thought of buyers paying UK Pounds for their of lingerie but being able to return their underwear and claim a refund in US dollars ( I must try it). The amended claim was allowed with Wexner yet again picking up the costs of the gravy train.

Mill (Bonhams) then stood up to talk about what is best described as the Ford “having your cake and eating it point” on the HoA. In Fords witness statement he claims that the HoA is not valid/binding and/or has expired and as a result Ohio retains jurisdiction over all issues. But in contradiction to this claim, he then goes on to say that in the event his appeal fails then, in those circumstances, the HoA is valid and enforceable. The reason for this contradiction is obvious, Ford is claiming the HoA did not give authority for Bonhams to sell the car so he can get everything back to Ohio. However, if he is proved wrong, he will need to claim the HoA was valid to get a share of the proceeds but with the sting that by changing his plea, all of the costs will be awarded against him leaving little or nothing in his pot. Justice Flaux asked Ford for clarification and after a long pause and a mumbled response, Flaux gave Ford 14 days to ‘commit himself in writing one way of another’. Decision time Joe.

Fords appeal on jurisdiction was then discussed, including surprisingly (but then again not) his recent application for a new appeal on the existing appeal (standby for a game changing appeal on the appeal on the appeal). Justice Flaux has requested an expedited hearing from Lord Justice Longmore (Lord Justice of Appeal) in an attempt to have the appeal heard before the trial but the general consensus in the Court was this was unlikely.

Justice Flaux then gave Ford a lecture on English evidential law and told him that although he may be an “expert” the Court would pay no attention to his opinion on Ferrari values and he would need to apply for permission to call an expert and again gave Ford 14 days to do this in writing.

Slade (Zanotti) highlighted a procedural problem that arose from his client not being able to speak English but having signed a witness statement written in English. Flaux directed that Zanotti should make and sign his statement in his mother tongue to ensure there could be no doubt as to what he was testifying.

Justice Flaux then asked Ford about the purpose of a document he had received this morning. Ford said it was to allow the parties to the Ohio case to “clarify” inconsistent court orders (sounded like the same arguments as the jurisdiction appeal to me). Justice Flaux asked if this was simply because he wanted to “go back to Ohio to see if he can get a better deal than from an English Court”. Ford said No but Hirst (Swaters) agreed and then weighed in accusing Ford of being most vexatious and that the amount of cost he was causing others to incur was outrageous . He had lost on jurisdiction, lost on title and was subject to an anti-suit injunction. Justice Flaux observed that if "Ford and Lawson been more reasonable and realistic on their position the case would have been settled” and then reminded Ford that any approach to Ohio would be contempt . The Application was dismissed.

Mill then raised the final issue on yet another witness statement from Ford (his 5th) that contained largely irrelevant information and a “diatribe of character assassination against Mr. Gardner". Flaux told Ford to concentrate on the issues of the case as he was not interested in his “vendetta with Gardiner”. Again he gave Ford 14 days to amend his pleadings including what point he was trying to make on Anderson (curious, could he be Joe’s new best mate ?). Mill also recorded that Ford had assigned a share of any award to McInnes (the UK solicitor he sacked) and accordingly they should be bound by any judgment. Joe Ford the Patron Saint of the Legal Profession.

The hearing ended. Throughout the proceedings, Joe Ford was connected by Skype but was uncharacteristically silent giving the impression of a condemned man who has accepted his fate and is awaiting execution. Ford commanded attention in previous hearings but on Friday he appeared marginalized and irrelevant to the main show of Wexner vs Bonhams. The talk after the hearing was the sale of 0684 for the equivalent of $36m which makes 0384 look very cheap at half the price and begs the question questions why doesn’t Wexner just sort this out with Bonhams and keep the car ?

Maybe Copely Motors did a good job after all !

 

Although I arrived late, that is an excellent précis of the bits I heard. I totally agree with Kim that Joe was very subdued. Justice Flaux was quite adamant in how the case is going to be heard, and frankly, Joe now seems like a bit of a sideline.

 

Thank you Francis.

I have been reflecting on Justice Flaux's comment that he "is not interested in Fords vendetta against Gardner" as maybe this gives a clue on what really lies behind this fiasco. Joe was indeed subdued and it was curious that the only time he was animated was when he talked about calling witnesses to prove what Gardner was saying was untrue which was in marked contrast to his lack of interest in calling witnesses to support his case.

I have never understood why Ford chose to walk away from the "biggest score in his life" in favour of litigation in London but now wonder if revenge is looking more of a motivation than money. You only have to look back at the earlier posts to see that Joe has spent a disproportionate and unessesary amount of time on assasinating the character of his old partner than he has on his case. My guess is that the turning point was when Gardner stepped in to stop the litigation and conclude a settlement as Ford was clearly upset to be excluded from the negotiating table and reverting back to the master and servant relationship they had in the past.

K

 

Kim - I won't let it go without saying that we all immensely appreciate the time and effort you have put into keeping those of us here informed of what's actually going on over there in the courtroom. Cheers to you sir!

>8^)
ER

 

Rather worryingly, it has become somewhat addictive sitting at the back of the Court watching the case unfold and I confess to feeing excited at the prospect of seeing the whole cast (including Wexner and Zanotti) turn up in April

 

Leslie Wexner will be in attendance? This is likely to cause an explosion of media attention, and also of Mr. Wexner's head, as he learns for the first time what has actually transpired in this case in his name.

 

Decades-long saga, millions of dollars at stake, unique cast of characters, some evildoers involved dragging it as far off course as they can - it's more intriguing than an episode of Matlock, and there's a truly wonderful Ferrari mired in the middle of it all. I totally get it and again, I thank you!

>8^)
ER