Agreed. It is a very good write up. I'm guessing he hasn't got time to do this regularly because Ummm... Errr... Anyone?
....... he's busy working ????? BTW many many many years ago (2001?) he did a nice write up of the VIC FCA trip to Italy
I've written a few good articles, but I need to be motivated. That rarely happens. I wrote a good email about Demarco to all the FCA Vic members once....I had motivation for that one too.
Is this the car in question? Ferrari For Sale | Ferrari History | Dutton Garage Image Unavailable, Please Login
That colour doesn't suit it at all .......... metal blue would look brilliant on that car .. I love those cars with Borranis
Something popped up today, so further reporting is on hold until further notice. I'll get to the bottom of it all tomorrow or the day after.
I remember there were quite a few nice cars driving around Melbourne at that time with KUD letters on the registration plates.
Latest update at the bottom of the page. Sandro and the black Queen Mary. http://www.pless.com.au/mechanics.htm
It is my understanding that the Queen Mary is now back in the possession of M. Kudelka. Is that correct?
Unlikely. Last I heard it was still with LK and has been since her picked it up from sandro's workshop. Maybe you're confusing the two cases?
Well, 12 independent and intelligent people decided he was not guilty. Not that he was innocent, just not guilty. Sandro's barrister showed a discrepancy in the police work.....or at least made the jury think there was a discrepancy. I was surprised, I must say, that after asking for a definition of unencumbered and lien that they found him not guilty, however. Sandro knew and admitted that at the very least, LK had invested $70k in that car (or more depending who you believe) AND he knew there was finance on it (even though Sandro said both he didn't know about the finance AND he did know about the finance! lol) so how can he sell it to someone else as unencumbered? I'm not up on the law on such things, but it just doesn't sound right to me I think part of the process is understanding this....to be guilty Sandro not only had to have not owned the car but KNOWN that he didn't (although he argues he did). He also had to not know that LK had a financial interest in the car that had to be satisfied, rather than "I waited long enough for the balance of the money and told him I couldn't wait any more and was selling to someone else" In other words, it's not just the act, but the intent. Does that make sense? Maybe the jury just decided Sandro thought that what he did was ok rather than being deceptive. ...or maybe they simply just weren't sure....and they're not sure, they have to acquit.
So the kicker is this...Sandro's barrister managed, AFTER all the evidence was finished with, to destroy LK's credibility by asserting that he was lying to save his neck. That was a smokescreen though......because the crime Sandro was accused of was selling the car to and taking money from FG. So what is DEFINITELY agreed on by Sandro and LK is that at a minimum $70k was given to Sandro towards the purchase of the black QM and Sandro knew there was finance against the car. Forget about their respective versions of how that happened and what the deal was, those two facts are agreed upon. So the crime, if there was one, was Sandro taking $120k from FG as 50% payment for the black QM and offering clear title, unencumbered and no lien. There is no way known, in my mind, that someone who's been in the car game for almost 30 years and who has borrowed money and paid it back for various things could possibly believe that he could sell that car "unencumbered and no lien" when even HE admits that there was finance on it and LK had 'an invested interest" of at least $70k. Thoughts?
It sends a shiver up my spine when I think of how many times I've sent money to people selling cars, on the assumption they are honest. Of course, all economies are based on fundamental trust. If everyone is dishonest, you end up with chaos, or Greece
Thoughts? The only thing I was thinking was 'Fark, PP is smarter than I am!' To be honest mate, it was confusing me a little as I read the proceedings and verdict. But with an IQ of 87, it's not hard to confuse me...
