Joe, If you lose, I think most lawyers would hate to defend you against the libel suit you'll have coming your way. YMMV, Alex
FYI "4. The Vehicle was introduced to me and identified by L'Exception Automobile and the Belgian authorities as a 0384AM. But the chassis number was almost illegible due to the Vehicle's damaged condition and also as a result of fire." Jacques Swaters Affidavit So, what Swaters is asking you to believe is that after he paid $100,000 to L'Exception Automobile in 1990 for a car identified as Ferrari 0384AM, he had doubts. Rather than check with the Ferrari factory, or check the build sheets, or contact Karl Kleve, or contact Howard Hively, or contact James Kimberly, or contact Gerald Rousch, Swaters instead took it upon himself to substitute a "9" instead of an "8", and to identify the car as 0394AM for about ten years. I find that simply impossible to believe. In fact, it may be that Swaters knew all along it was 0384AM, but that he knew he had to do something to hide it as it was still a high-profile stolen car, so as to avoid detection and confiscation. Maybe that too is why Swaters never comes out into the open, for example, with that August 5, 2005 Georgia attorney letter making demands for an unnamed client, or later in the alleged Sept 2, 1999 Settlement Agreement as an unnamed possessor of the car. *
Joe, I get what you are saying, and I am definitely not trying to suggest I know what the outcome will be. I will say the evidence presented here has been somewhat one sided, and obviously you've made your case, which (to a layman like me) appears to have some merit. However, a lot of things in life are unpredictable, and I personally would hesitate to accuse someone of fraud until I had a firmer legal standing. It's good that you believe so strongly in your case, because frivolous suits are a bane to the legal system. However, I think many people here believe there is at least a chance Swaters is not guilty. If that should be the case, you might regret what you have printed. It's a lot easier to go from the high road down to the low, but it's almost impossible to go from the low road to the high road. A
I think you went off on a tangent. This case is not about accusing or proving Swaters as guilty of fraud, nor is it about proving fraud in the legal sense. Thus, that legal standard and burden of proof is inapplicable. This case is about a contract, and whether it is legit and enforceable. Swaters claims he has a contract, and the heirs and myself say he does not. Thus, win or lose, it decides naught as to fraud since that is not the issue on trial. Also, unless defined otherwise such as in a specific legal document, "fraud" is a simple word with a simple meaning. fraud noun \ˈfrȯd\ Definition of FRAUD 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick 2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be So when I use the word "fraud", I mean it is fraud to represent that Ferrari made a car with VIN 0394AM when in fact Ferrari did not - i.e. an act of misrepresenting. Simply put, Ferrari made no such car, and it is ludicrous to suggest it did, especially for someone as skilled and as resourced as Swaters. Remember, it is not as if Swaters is a photographer who is putting a caption under one of his many photographs, or as if he is a distant or shallow researcher with limited access to files. Swaters is one of the oldest Ferrari dealers!!! If one truly has doubt about a Ferrari's VIN #, one checks with a competent or qualified source, especially if the value at issue is so high - i.e. $100,000 or more. Here, the competent source is of course the Ferrari factory. If one arbitrarily chooses a new number, especially when one holds conflicting paperwork from authorities, and is a Ferrari dealer with access to Ferrari files, build sheets, archivists, etc. . . . .well, it simply defies belief and defies credibility. I may post a status update on the case tomorrow. *
One sided yes? But Fchat is open to Swaters. I would not say OJ's case is made. Swaters can produce docs that will end this all. Frivolous lawsuit Did Swaters (wife) file this suit? "a chance Swaters is not guilty" AND "It's a lot easier to go from the high road down to the low" We will see. Looks like OJoe's pushing Swaters to produce on discovery. The corner is painted smaller for all. Swaters has to be praying for summary judgment.
One question for Joe and then the second one for him or whomever has the answer: - At what point did you become a party to these procedings or establish a financial interest in this vehicle? Was it before the Swaters lawsuit was filed or after? - Is it true that Ferrari made an engine numbered 394 for the 375 Plus? If that is true was this engine ever installed in 0384/0394? Thanks! >8^) ER
Is the car still at Ferrari Classiche? Has work at Classiche at a stand still? Apparently this was one of the reasons for the (denied) motion to move the car to the court's location and control. Jeff
Erik, I became a co-owner after the lawsuit. Kristi Kleve-Lawson was being helped by another car guru and when the matter landed in court she knew she needed more seasoned legal expertise and help. It took us several days to hammer out an agreement, and we signed on 2.25.10 and we both had a lawyer to attend the hearing the next day. Also, Ferrari build sheets show that Ferrari made an engine with a number 0394 (no"AM") and it was NOT for a 375 plus, nor was it 4.9 litres. Some have tried to muddy the waters with that issue. Fortunately, for all Ferrari owners and for the Ferrari brand, nothing trumps the stamped "0384AM" on the chassis, especially with the crystal clear chain of ownership from factory to Kimberly to Kleve. Joe
Jeff There is a standing Status Quo order such that all parties agreed (Swaters-Kleve-Ford) not to move or change or alter the condition of the stuff each held (docs, parts, car). Thus, work had better have stopped at Classiche as of the date of that order, and subsequently. If you have info otherwise, please forward to my email or PM me. As to why the Judge denied the Motion for an Injunction to Move the car to Ohio, I think it is more a matter that I did not show irreparable harm, which is one of the threshold showings. Seeking an Injunction is one of several legal techniques of getting the car here for preservation and inspection. Joe
Status of the Case as Of 10.30.10 A case management conference was held on 9.30.10 and discovery cutoff dates, expert witness disclosure dates, and motion cutoffs dates were set, all in preparation for trial. Swaters, through his attorneys, has failed to comply with discovery deadlines so on 10.21.10 we filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Request to Inspect the Car in Ohio. As it stands now, Swaters is over 80 days late in compliance with discovery. For the uninitiated as to the process of heading to trial, “discovery” is the part of the process where parties to a lawsuit “produce” for each other any requested documents or requested things so that they can prepare for trial and discover all pertinent evidence. It is all part of a well-established and mundane procedure, and those who do not comply usually . . . . *
Thanks for addressing my questions. My first one was motivated by the idea that Swaters may have filed the lawsuit because they perceived that Kristi Kleve-Lawson was in a vulnerable position and would eventually give in to their demands or try to settle for a reasonable amount. If you'd been in the picture already then perhaps they'd have reconsidered their strategy. Maybe letting those extra parts go through the auction as planned and then bidding to win them would have been a smarter/cheaper approach. I can't think of anyone else who would have wanted them as much as Swaters? >8^) ER
Dunno - the title would still be an issue. Not sure how you could legally sell a title at auction, unless it was sold along with a piece of a car with a visible vin number. Even then it would be a little sketchy. Much better to make it all disappear, distract everyone and reappear with a shiny new car... (not that I'm picking sides...just playing at hypotheticals)
Swaters already has the Ohio title for the car. The one that Kleve-Lawson is in possession of is a duplicate that Karl Kleve had issued by claiming he'd "lost" the original one. Maybe he forgot he gave it to Daniels? Not sure what good a duplicate title would be to anyone. Another thing I've been curious about - what occurred between Daniels and Karl Kleve after the deal with Lankswert had been completed? Kleve obviously contracted Daniels to do something for him and by Ocean Joe's claims, it was never done to Kleve's satisfaction. I tend to think that Kleve being so passionate about recovering the car or getting his money that he probably would not have let it rest. I guess the part that really doesn't make sense is why Daniels was ever let off the hook. He's obviously not party to the current situation on either side and the judge decided not to compel him to participate which is unfortunate. He's like the key to this whole dispute in my eyes. Perhaps if forced to testify he'd need to plead the fifth though. >8^) ER
You are right on the money in my opinion. Daniels was(is) partners in a company called National Search Services which has a very extensive data base listing stolen vehicles and recovers cars for insurance companies and individuals. NSS would have never gotten involved unless they had a bullet proof contract with Kleeve and would have gone to Interpole with it and the ownership documents to prove their case. NSS makes good money doing this and acquire full legal rights to settle any and all ownership questions in the process. We can only speculate.
Bloomberg Businessweek, Mark T Daniels - executive profile: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=11172360&ticker=TADF:US
Look back a ways in the thread, I believe title also had something fishy with it...signed by Daniels I think? Sorry I don't remember at the moment. For a company as 'bullet proof' as NSS, they left a lot of loose ends.
* Swaters has still not called me or agreed to meet with me in Europe at a nice hotel of his choosing. The court case in Cincinnati, Ohio is in the discovery phase. As of today, November 16, 2010, Swaters has failed to produce the originals of signed documents for expert inspection, failed to answer interrogatories, and failed to produce copies of other requested documents such as receipts, bank statements for the alleged checks, and restoration records. The request for these docs went out July 2, and Swaters' response was due approximately August 2. A hearing for sanctions and to compel compliance is now being scheduled. FYI - Swaters filed the suit in Cincinnati on February 12, 2010 against Kleve's daughter-heir. *
I can only guess he is doing this on advice of counci,l what ever that may mean.I agree it doesn't look particularly good for someone with the fine reputation he has always had. just one man's opinion tongascrew
I think there are lots of people with egg on their face, particularly the folks that restored the car?
Council can never advise flat out non-compliance with rules - the system fails if such is the case. Council are officers of the court who must respect the rules. Jacques Swaters has shown some copies of the docs, which have been challenged based on glaring discrepancies. It is not a good sign when one who wants to enforce a contract in court and then one, after showing copies, then fails to produce the original, and fails to produce the originals of the proof of payment. If he is the honorable man with the good reputation as many allege, then frankly I would expect him to have produced the docs ahead of time, as well as met with me to try and work this out. *
More about Jacques Swaters is now posted at his website. Very nice story about his upbringing and WWII. Jacques Swaters has lived a charmed life. * Now, about that stolen 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus 0384AM, and the dishonorable profiting from a known theft rather than returning stolen property . . . . . . . renumbering 0384AM to 0394AM . . . . . . sending undisclosed people to deal with the victim of the theft rather than being open, upright, and upfront about it . . . . . . Swiss bank account and New York trust account checks . . . . . . paying the agent and not the principal while holding docs that instruct you to pay the prinicipal . . . * The final chapter for the Jacques Swaters biography is about to be written in an Ohio courtroom, based on the relevant facts. * I have requested a meeting with Swaters at a European hotel of his choice, and that request still stands. * A hearing has been set for Dec 16, 2010 on the Motion to Compel Swaters' compliance with discovery. *
