375+ # 0384

Indeed.

One of the reasons given by Justice Flaux for the move to a larger Court was to accommodate the media interest. There are 14 days set aside for witness statements and cross examination of the principal characters, including a specific day set aside for the busy Mr Wexner

 

Original Appeal from 2015 on 22 separate "irrefutable" grounds of appeal that were essentially on Justice Flaux’s findings of fact, including foreign law. These included: Kleve not signing an amendment to Daniels fee cap suggesting he was being cheated; The application of Belgium Law and a sale at a gross under value. All applications refused as being (close to but not quite) totally without merit with no reason to grant any stay of execution nor any reason why the trail set for 18th April should not proceed

Appeal on the Original Appeal dated 1st December 2015 on 3 grounds for challenge of Jurisdiction, the grant of an anti suit injunction and the determination of ownership as a preliminary issue before considering the HoA. Refused as being totally without merit on the basis of being substantially out of time. As they say a "classic mistake by less-than-sharp attorneys - not checking dates".

There are now only four more days left on Justice Flaux’s deadline for Joe to make up his mind on the HoA. My guess is all or bust for Joe (after all he is pro se with nothing to lose and will ignore Lawson) and he will not accede to the enforceability, as it will eliminate any possibility litigating in Ohio.

Then again he may have forgotten the date.

 

Tick Tick Tick

 

When do you suppose the ticking will STOP? tonga's crew

 

In theory at end of play tomorrow, because that is the end of the 14 day period that Justice Flaux gave Joe to decide what his plea is.

But nothing with Joe tends to be so simple!

 

Thanks, keep us posted. tonga's crew

 

As Francis says, nothing with Joe is ever simple

Frustrated that the anti suit injunction stops him starting another clock he's come up with the idea of suing the American Arbitration Association because he is unhappy with their arbitration. I don't know how it works in the US but over here an arbitration decision is binding and cannot be challenged. Is there an AAA4AAA ?

 

Arb can be binding or not; it depends on the initial agreement of the parties.

 

Doesn't it also matter if there is an error in the application of law or gross negligence on the consideration of facts?

 

Why is the claim to a Court and not in the first instance as appeal to the AAA ?

The claim is under Florida statute 682.14 to modify the arbitration award on the basis the AAA exceeded the scope of the dispute subject to the arbitration. Principally because the AAA awarded the repayment of monies for other business transactions and ordered Ford to settle Lawson out of his share, both of which we not covered in his agreement with Gardner. The AAA clearly considered Fords conduct in dealing with Gardner when making their decision so my question is, are they entitled to incorporate other instances of "self dealing" in their award ?

What is curious is the motivation behind Ford also claiming to have the non disclosure of confidential information stricken from the award as also being outside of the scope. I cannot see why this is so important other than to confirm Justice Flaux's comments to Ford about pursuing a vendetta against Gardner rather then the case at hand.

 

Joe, I understand, somewhat surprisingly, that you jumped before the deadline and finally accepted that the HoA is valid and enforceable and effectively dropped any claims for rescission, frustration or that the HoA expired after the 2013 auction date. Your financial logic of trying to preserve what is left in the OC pot after cost and damage claims in understandable as is the rationale behind you trying to add to the pot by claiming damages on the basis that the auction in did not achieve the best price.

If my understanding is correct, then to succeed with your claim that the car was sold at an undervalue you will need to show that not only are the matters you complain about are true but also your actions did not contribute to the loss. As a layman, this strikes me as challenging, particularly given that it was your agent Mr Clark who was running around the market telling potential buyers (including Wexner) to avoid Bonhams and about the title problems. Clearly, Mr Wexner ignored your offer of $25m and did not think he got a bargain as he still wants to rescind the contract and get his money back.

I also hear you have made no application for expert evidence within the deadline which leaves you, in your expert opinion, having to convince Justice Flaux that the car should have sold for a lot more. Apart from your opinion in post 2727, you may wish to consider the comments of other well respected contributors to this thread.

Post 2727 25th January 2015:

post 852 28th August 2013:

 

Your Information is Incomplete / Incorrect - Who Is Your Source? Why don't they give you the whole story?

Massini, whom I respect, proves my point. He has only 375 MM data, which is a tangental indicator at best because there are so many of the MM's. There are other examples of rarer Ferrari race cars that are establish the price trend useful for evaluating a Plus.

Joe

*

 

Why don't you give us the whole story?

>8^)
ER

 

I thought Mr Massini's analysis was spot on and before the auction, so did you.

Exactly which sales "immediately after" your valuation date of 2013.07.15 made you change your OPINION ?

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143209198-post19.html

 

+1 and its all going to be public in little over three weeks anyway

 

And of course, Joe always knows best and no doubt has a game changing plan ;-)

 

Joe, could Mr David 10% Clark be your expert witness ?

He could also give his testimony on how Bonhams unilaterally ruined the reputation of the car.

I would wager that Bonhams would even be happy to pay his airfare even though Messrs Wexner and Carpenter may prefer he stayed at home

 

Earlier I politely asked you for the source of your information (dis-information).

I ask again.

Source?

Joe

*

 

What does that matter Joe? Is it correct or not? As Kim wrote, we will find out in three weeks.

 

Yes, we wouldn't want to allow any questions go unanswered in this thread, would we? Especially not the polite ones.

>8^)
ER

 

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

 

Can someone provide information on the Ferrari trade described below?

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/swaters_v_lawson_judgment_final_10_11_15_read_-only.pdf

On paragraph number 157 of the above document.

Justice Flaux wrote:

I also consider that, in all probability, Mr. Kleve was paid by Mark Daniels.

Then it goes on to say …… in part by giving or selling him a Ferrari 250 for free.
(Daniels claimed to have sold/given Kleve a Ferrari 250.)

Has anyone out there seen this Ferrari 250?

Does anyone have photos or a chassis number for this car?

Why was this Ferrari NOT for sale at the Kleve estate sale in 2005?

Or, if there is no such Ferrari 250 given in lieu of cash, then what does that say for Kleve’s participation in the supposed settlement.

Furthermore, was this Ferrari 250 the car referred to as a $340,000.00 beautiful roadster sitting in a warehouse referenced in paragraph 151 of the same above document?

 

Dear Guy Anderson

More polite questions

Why not ask Daniels ?

What's is the motivation behind your enquiry ?

Are you now working with Joe Ford on a new game changing plan ?

 

Hello Mr. Kim

Thanks for your answer but it is not actually an answer at all.

I have always preferred polite over impolite.

I did talk to Daniels by phone in 1997 when he contacted me asking questions about Kleve. Perhaps I will write about that in F-Chat sometime in the future.

Daniels told Mr. Crook in 2000 he gave/sold a Ferrari 250 to Kleve. That same information was confirmed by The Honorable Mr. Justice Flaux as proof of payment to Kleve.

So where is this mystery car? I was with Kleve in 1999/2000 in one of our many meetings with Karl Kleve and he was not driving a Ferrari nor did he have it in his possession. The car was not listed as an asset to be sold at the Kruse Auction either.

At this time in Kleve’s life he was frail and was having his meals delivered by meals on wheels service. So why would Kleve want to buy any other cars? Kleve was done buying cars in the 70’s since he preferred land yachts over shoe boxes. (Fact)

I inquired with some Ferrari insiders and not one of them knew of a $340,000.00 Ferrari 250 roadster that was owned by or given to Kleve. (In 1999/ 2000)

The motivation behind my inquiry is to clarify something I personally don’t believe is true.

Furthermore, since we are on this subject….. the judgment also states that Daniels cashed
2 checks thru Orlando, Florida and that would imply he used a Kleve P.O.A. to sign the Kleve name listed on 1 of the checks. If that is true, then where is the copy of the check written to Kleve for the balance of this transaction.

Oh let me guess…it was a cash transaction and delivered to Kleve via carrier pigeon from Florida to Ohio.

Here is another question I would like answered.

WHY NEW YORK? Why would ANYONE who wants to buy a car, not deal with the “supposed owner” in his home town of Cincinnati Ohio.” What is up with that?

I am not working with OJ (Ocean Joe) on a new game changing plan.

But if I were, I would ask him to look deep into that FRAUDULENT KIMBERLY BILL OF SALE and where it originated and the reason why.

I would also demand to know why the parts did not transfer thru the Daniels/Lanksweert
transaction of 1999.Perhaps Kleve would have figured out he was being used.

Note: Kleve told me about the parts on many an occasion so why would Daniels claim
The parts were stolen.

I would also beat that VIN change to death with the witnesses.

 

Dear Mr Anderson

Thank you for your reply. Your reference to a "Ferrari 250" is from Mr Lancksweert testimony and was not challenged by Ford in court. It is wrong to suggest that this was in anyway accepted as definitive evidence by Justice Flaux and it contradicts the earlier statement made by FBI Agent Crook in paragraph 151. I quote

"One of the transcripts of telephone conversations relied upon by Ms Lawson and Mr Ford is between Mr Kleve and the FBI agent Mr Kenneth Crook on 5 June 2000, during the course of which Mr Kleve seems to be suggesting that the settlement he thought was going to be closed was for U.S. $3 million, that the other number (i.e. the U.S. $625,000) was news to him and that he had received none of the monies. Mr Crook says that his understanding from Mr Daniels was that documents went back and forth to get Mr Kleve’s permission and they closed the settlement at what he thought was less than U.S. $600,000. He also refers to being told by Mr Daniels that there was a stipulation that Mr Kleve was to receive another car, a beautiful roadster. In relation to the monies, he said his understanding was there was “a bunch of money in the trust account” and a $340,000 car sitting in a warehouse. It was following that conversation that Mr Kleve apparently gave Mr Timothy Smith an unsigned copy of the Settlement Agreement with the settlement amount filled in on the first page as U.S. $3 million in what Mr Smith said was Mr Kleve’s handwriting, for Mr Smith to send it by fax to Mr Crook."

So what we have is Mark Daniels openly telling an FBI agent that he has money sitting in a trust account and/or a $340,000 roadster (no mention of a Ferrari) as part of an agreed settlement with Kleve. Simple question, is it honestly creditable that Agent Crook did not mention this fact to Kleve, Smith or anyone. If Daniels was openly saying he had the money then why did Kleve and his attorney Smith do nothing to recover it and equally why were Ford/Lawson unaware of this fact or subsequently chose to do anything about it ? Now I assume your many meetings with Kleve were when you were trying to broker a deal for Lancksweerts and not after the deal with Daniels. If as you are suggesting, Kleve never talked about a Ferrari post settlement then are you also saying Kleve never talked about the fact that Daniels had been paid ?

What was most compelling at the hearing was Justice Flauxs observation that Kleve had taped all the previous conversations and yet there were no taped conversations after the settlement. It was also strange that Kleves bank statement had also gone missing. Now add to this the fact that: there was no subsequent litigation against Daniels by the serial litigator Kleve; the asset was excluded from estate; Lawsons subsequent attempts to sell the parts for peanuts and finally, why no one, including you, ever spoke to Mark Daniels after to the event. Although I believe Kleve was a victim who was taken advantage of, when you look at the evidence, I can appreciate why Justice Flaux believed that Daniels and Kleve trying to scam Swaters (para 127) and "in all probability" Kleve had been paid.

Otherwise and another polite question, what is the basis of your ownership interest in 0384AM and why does this conflict with your testimony?