375+ # 0384

You raise a point that maybe one/some of our learned attorneys can give insight on. If two different venues are involved (say London and Ohio) how would there be a legal consolidation? If solely in the US and there were two different contrary rulings issued, as I understand it, that would mean it would go to US Federal Court.

I envision that the auction house and buyer is a dispute separate from Ohio and would always stay in the UK because that is where that dispute occurred.

If OJ is successful in his case with Gardner in Florida then that may fast track the resolution of a number of other issues in Ohio and London since it would mean that Gardner had no standing to commit to anything with anyone. My feeling is that when this one gets resolved there will be multiple ramifications quickly.

Jeff

 

Thanks. Please keep an eye out for any Carrol Foundation news and Bonhams.

Yes, Gardner CLAIMS to be an owner but it is a mere unadjudicated claim with a low probability of success. Bonhams drank the koolaid despite being put on notice that it was koolaid. Now they pay the price because, as duly and repeatedly warned, there was a lack of authority from some of the owners. There is NO REASONABLE WAY to say Lawson is not a 30% owner - she has an Ohio Court Order that VOIDED change #3 thus officially keeping her as 30% owner on the Ohio title, AND she has offered to me who offered to Gardner the $75k back, which he refused, as of course he rather toss that spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks - high probability of failure on that claim. (I am known for cleaning spaghetti off of walls LOL.)

Both Gardner and Swaters warranted that they had full capacity to convey title when they signed the Conditions of Sale on auction day. However, Bonhams is hard-pressed to make an honest claim of reliance on those representations based on the last minute timing and based on the many notice letters sent to Bonhams I think no court will take. There may be other representations made that I am not aware of.

Ohio case A1001370 will resume for any or all of three reasons - I win the appeal, or the London action ends with no distribution of funds, or the new evidence comes into play. The ONLY premise for ending A1001370 is if there was the AGREED auction and, pending distribution of funds, then case A1001370 would end. That did not occur, and I do not think any London court will say that it did, or will order it.


My IMHO speculation as to the resolution is:

1) the Stakeholder Claim is STAYED pending resolution of the Rescission Claim (because a sale is a predicate to placing funds in escrow). . .

2) Then, the Rescission Claim is HEARD and granted in favor of Buyer. Bonhams must make full refund to Buyer with costs, plus Bonhams is out of pocket the L1,000,000 it claims it paid to Zanotti. Some HOA issue MAY get heard and resolved in this proceeding, and if so, it will end the HOA disputes . . .

3) Then, the Stakeholder Claim is DISMISSED because if there is no sale, there are no funds to litigate over.

4) The Zanotti claims will be worked out separately with Bonhams (in or out of the London court) because I think they will get most of their money back after applying pressure on Zanotti in yet another legal proceeding. The fact that Zanotti waited until the very last minute to assert his claim tells me he knew it was a weak, knew it was a longshot / guantlet play, and knew he had no horsepower. Bonhams ought be able to get that ship righted rather easily IMHO. If anyone knows Sr. Jose Zanotti Cavazzoni, tell him to contact my attorneys in Ohio.

And you are correct if you think my posts are also aimed to communicate info to benefit other interested parties who are wondering "what next".

Joe

*

 

Joe, one thing that puzzles me is why have you not yet gone to adjudication to settle your dispute with Gardner ?

I appreciate your opinion that he was in breach because he stopped financing and the Court voided the percentage change however, I do not see why a adjudicator will award him nothing. Ignoring the attorney/client argument, he had already paid over a significant amount of money, including the payments to Lawson before he called a halt. Would the adjudicator not take this into account and not expect Gardner to be an "open cheque book" paying anything you demanded ?

Otherwise, thank you for outlining what you see as the sequence of events. I think your boldest assumption is Copley/Wexner being successful in rescinding the sale. It is inconceivable that they did not know of your disagreement before the sale and I think it more likely a deal will be done and the sale will go through. Correct me if I am wrong but if that happens the litigation (and a lot of it) will be where the cash is.....in London

 

This is all IMHO (In My Humble Opinion):

It is underway. Gardner is dragging his feet in production of financial records and other documents which will likely affect my filings. I may file and just amend.

It will be up to the three-member panel of arbitrators. New information will likely show Gardner owes me for damages that will more than offset the return to Gardner of true F375 financing amounts that were sent to me. It is a matter of accounting, and I can already see his plan (which is doomed to fail) to confuse other ongoing, concurrent business payments to me as if they were all only F375 financing payments. I simply do not believe the arbitrators will reward Gardner's partial performance followed by breach followed by vendetta and sabotage and dishonest claims - THAT is what I think occurred here.

Then, IMHO, there is the aspect of the Gardner frauds -- two on Morse and one on Scott which renders every dollar Gardner put in as being stolen money from someone else - a possible outcome is that Gardner gets ZERO and the other victims are compensated as it was their money he was using. It is too soon to tell how this plays out, but it is not too soon to say Gardner's claims have an exteremly low probability of success upon any honest evaluation.

Kim, you miss the Buyer's point. The Buyer has written confirmations from Bonhams just before the auction, and again upon payment where Bonhams literally says you can trust us, the litigation is over, and they believe they have all that they need to convey title. It is not reliance on the catalogue, which contractually one should not do, it is reliance on UK law, the present inability to convey title, and the written assurances. It is not a matter of knowing OF litigation, it is a matter of it being settled such that title can be conveyed. I frankly do not see how Bonhams can prevail because all the Judge has to do is say:

UK Judge: Mr. Bonhams, its says here that the auction was June 27, 2014. The Buyer paid you in full a few days later, is that true?
Mr. Bonhams: Yes.
UK Judge: It is now November. Have you and sellers conveyed title to the Buyer for Lot 320?
Mr. Bonhams: No.
UK Judge: Then give the man his money back and his costs and quit wasting my time.
Mr. Bonhams: But Juuuuudge, we think we can deliver title to Lot 320.
UK Judge: Did you explain to the buying public that you were selling Lot 320 on the basis that you "think" you can convey title at some point in the distant, uncertain future?
Mr. Bonhams: No.
UK Judge: Well, like I said, GIVE THE MAN HIS MONEY BACK AND HIS COSTS AND INTEREST, and quit wasting my time.
Mr. Bonhams: But Juuuuuudge, what about our commission?
UK Judge: How is that my concern? We have a Buyer to whom you cannot convey clear title and we have UK law that says before you can even offer goods for sale you must be able to convey clear title. You did not, and after three months you have not, so GIVE THE MAN HIS MONEY BACK AND HIS COSTS AND COMPOUND INTEREST AND QUIT WASTING MY TIME.
Mr. Bonhams: But Juuuuuuudddge, what about the L1,000,000 we paid to Sr. Jose Zanotti Cavazzoni?
UK Judge: Well who told you to do that?
Mr. Bonhams: Mr. Gardner and Ms. Swaters.
UK Judge: Well, take that up with Mr. Gardner and Ms. Swaters, and like I told you, QUIT WASTING MY TIME. DISMISSED AS TO BUYER v BONHAMS. NEXT . . .

All the above is in my humble opinion. It is my prediction based on what I have seen so far. It can change after I see more.

Joe

*

 

Joe, thanks for the further info

Have you seen the Max Vito updated website ?

You may wish to look at the section titled "In the Courts" as it includes a copy of the Bonhams writ and various correspondence between you and your attorney

<removed.

as they say........more popcorn

K

 

At least that's a place Max and all the voices in his head can meet and discuss all the important stuff a delusional mind has rattling around in his melon.

Perry

 

Wonder if Max bothered to get permission to use any of the images he posted. Be fun to watch him getting orders to remove images.

Read through some of the document postings he did from the case and in his delusion he is missing the fact that they do not support him/his great white hat friend CG.

Jeff

 

Who authorized Bonham's to pay:

"L1,000,000 to Sr. Jose Zanotti Cavazzoni" against L2,000,000?

Why?

Who's share was that payment to be deducted from?

Why?

Who agreed to have that sum deducted from their share?

Why is that payment not referenced in Bonham's pleadings assuming the posted pleadings are real and full?

If there was a pending action in Ohio as to Title how can Bonham's convey clear title to LW at time of hammer?

Joe do you believe "Max" is Gardiner? Y or No. If "No" who?

 

This is Max Mr I own a 750 Monza but I wont tell you which one because well then we would know if he was "lying". Its got to be either Gardner or an agent of his posting on his behalf, Joe has more proof I am sure.

 

the only parties to Bonhams sale are those known as BC = Belgium Contingent... The Ohio Contingent - OC had withdrawn all their authorities prior to Bonhams auction sale also questioning the wisdom of going forward with the sale...
as such the OC, by withdrawing their authorities, was not privy or party to any subsequment mechanizations leading to the auction...
all agreements going forward leading to the sale are the sole domain of the Bonhams and the BC... with total disreguard to litigation / appeals going on in Ohio courts which have the potential to affect the pending outcome and validity of actions taken by Bonhams and the BC... this summary is based from posts made to this thread... opinion is that Bonhams does not have clear title or authority to create any sale... in effect they sold goods they did not own or have authority to sell or make any representations of any kind...
a gap / defect in the lineage of ownership exists in Ohio, as with title law all defects must be closed / cleared to create a continuous lineage before good title can be passed forward....while further court rulings are in balance and defects remain uncured, Bonhams has sold property without authorization ( stolen )... is holding both property and sale proceeds not entitled to hold, constituting fraud...

 

A interesting statement from Allen Markelson

"Ford purposely delay parts"

<removed.

 

Jim,

My belief is that hours before the auction and on the day of the auction, Bonhams as principal and as agent for Swaters / Gardner entered into a settlement with Sr. Jose Zanotti Cavazonni via his UK attorney whereby they agreed to pay him L1,000,000 by June 30 and another L1,000,000 by July 31, 2014 for an assignment of all of his rights.

IMHO, Bonhams bought Zanotti's claim to silence him, despite writing and arguing the day before how devoid of merit the claim was. In essence, Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner were willing to pay L2,000,000 to sweep the claim under the rug so that they could proceed with the auction and avoid the well-deserved publicity nightmare. This makes sense I believe they all see that the Ohio will one day resolve true ownership.

Bonhams got both Swaters and Gardner to sign off before the auction as "sellers". The amount paid was to be deducted from the "sellers'" share using Wexner's money -- this presumes that Swaters and Gardner actually have an ownership share to give such consent, to claim the position of "seller," and presumes they had enough value in their share to pay it. I maintain they have NO ownership share but they may have a right to reimbursement of certain amounts. Swaters still confuses "possession" with ownership. Swaters has failed to prove acquisition from the prior owner - Karl Kleve. In fact, Swaters 1999 documents admit Karl Kleve was the owner and the car was "removed form his possesion" -- ha, what a way to say it was stolen.

Bonhams did not make the second payment to Zanotti and is going to try and get a refund of the L1,000,000 they say they paid. Swaters claims she was put under unbearable pressure to agree to it despite her belief that the claim was meritless.

IMHO Bonhams' interest in going ahead with the auction of its feature, cataloque cover car eclipsed all else, including common sense, UK law, and duties owed to Swaters. I leave out Gardner as the duty owed Gardner IMHO is zero since he is a mere financier with a contingent lien interest that remains to be adjudicated.

Despite repeated warnings from Ford and from Lawson and Ford' US and UK attorneys that date back to September 24, 2013, Bonhams "doubled down" -- well, Bonhams lost. The sooner they realize this the sooner things will move in a forward direction.

As far as the Stakeholder Claim action in the UK, Bonhams holds back the L2,000,000 out of the scope of the Stakeholder Proceeding because Bonhams claims an interest in that sum. Bonhams claims no interest in the L7,600,000 sum (hammer price remainder) thus that amount is the subject of the Stakehoilder proceeding. I predict the Stakeholder Proceeding gets STAYED because it is premature to even have a Stakeholder proceeding since the sale is subject to rescission, which I predict it WILL be rescinded.

The ownership litigation in Ohio, IMHO, is a far stronger OFFICIAL and UNRESOLVED claim than Zanotti ever was. Instead of recognizing that Bonhams gambled, and prepped for an auction that was unauthorized.

Finally, yes I believe Max Vito is Gardner for several reasons. The ad hominen nature of his attacks just confirms he has no relevant facts to back his claims, so he arrogantly lashes out in a very personal nature. It is the closest thing to a pot calling the mirror black as you will ever see - he projects all his problems and his wrongdoings onto others because in his distorted and delusional world he thinks can do no wrong.

Again, all the above is in my humble opinion.

Joe


*

 

This makes sense although I'm mystified that Bonham's would pay L2MM. Is their claim that Gardner had the right on behalf of the entire Ohio group to authorize a deduction from that share. 50% of Hammer?

 

Joe, it is interesting to read Bonhams Writ against you and their construction of the HOA terms as to why they believe they had continuing authority to sell the car after the 2013 auction. I assume they will use the same argument as part of their defence against the Copley action

What did surprise me in the document was their suggestion in para 27 that you were trying to sell the car privately before the auction and were already in contact with a Mr Stu Carpenter of Copley Motorcars through an intermediary Mr David Clark. They claim you were offering to sell them the car on the basis that it could be "bought without prejudice" which infers that there was a problem buying through the auction. What puzzles me is why they chose to ignore your offer and clear warning and buy a tainted car at the auction.

What price was David Clark asking ?

 

All IMHO

My experience with Bonhams thus far is that they are a dishonourable lot who will do/say anything, including making misrepresentations, to get what they want. I have new evidence of fraud that I will give to LW as it may trigger a rescission at an earlier point in time. Also, I do not think Bonhams tells their UK attorneys the truth based on what their UK attorneys write. I hope they are reading this.

Bonhams claims they settled with Zanotti on auction day as agent and as principal per a Bonhams-Zanotti "settlement" agreement wherein Zanotti assigned all of his claims to Bonhams in exchange for L2,000,000. On auction day, Bonhams also got Swaters and Gardner to each sign a "UK Conditions of Sale" document in which they each represent that they are a "seller" capable of selling the lot, conveying title, and appointing Bonhams as their agent to settle any claims. So, yes, Gardner does claim he OWNS and has capacity to sell, despite being before an Ohio court where he knows better than to make such a misrepresentation, and Bonhams knows better than to believe such a representation. I do not think Gardner represented that he was Lawson or Ford's agent. Then the cabal tries to take these docs and use as if cover of their unauthorized actions.

Again, all the above is IMHO and it WILL play out in the appropriate courts.

Joe

*

 

Joe, have you read what Allen Markelson has said in his statement ?

 

Can you share the source of this information? Since the Zanotti claim was first revealed it has been a distinct possibility that Bonhams -- as opposed to Zanotti's own attorneys -- was the prime mover in engineering Zanotti's silence. I can very easily imagine Florence Swaters getting the 11th-hour message that unless she agreed to pay off Zanotti, the June 27 auction of # 0384 would be cancelled and Swaters could find herself personally liable for any resulting losses. Given that # 0384 was Bonhams' "halo" car at that auction, expert witnesses could very well opine that the extent of the damage was not limited to the bidding on # 0384 alone. The Bonhams v. Lawson & Ford "writ" (what we would call a complaint in the States) that Max Vito has posted on his FChat is a good example of this.

And let's keep it clear, that it was the sellers' money -- not Bonhams -- that was used to pay off Zanotti. We should also remember that the contract for sale is between the sellers and the auction winner. To rescind that contract will require the auction winner to return the car, and the sellers to refund the hammer price. With Zanotti the owner of L1 million of the latter, it is unlikely that the sellers will be able, or willing, to fund a rescission with L1 million of their personal funds.

Someone may have made this joke previously, but it remains the case that when the owner of Victoria's Secret gets his knickers in a twist, it's a lot of knickers. Given the fact that there is no ready source of funding for a voluntary rescission, I seriously doubt that Mr. Wexner wants to return the car or to be tied down in litigation for months and years, with the car held in escrow until that litigation is final.

 

$25 Mil was the price and Clark sought offers to buy which would be routed to Swaters-Ford-Lawson attorneys (principals) for acceptance and an official close at which time formal endings to all litigation would be worked out and Bonhams would be fairly compenstated. You repeat other's misrepresentations when you state otherwise. The attempt to sell outside the auction was brought to the attention of Judge Martin. Any claim that I was offering to sell, or could sell, other people's property, are false claims.

The Buyer then contacted Bonhams, who I think slandered Clark and then convinced the Buyer with assurances that only Bonhams had authority and could convey title - which we all know is simply not true.

To suggest otherwise as you do is to suggest that the Buyer was willing to pay $18,000,000 for a CHANCE to buy the Ferrari, not to actually buy and own it. That is ridiculous. Like the UK Judge will say:

UK Judge: Mr. Bonhams, did you tell this Buyer he was buying into unresolved litigation about ownership and did you warn him that it may be adjudicated that Bonhams has no authority to sell any of Lot 320?
Mr. Bonhams: Well, Juuuuuuudge . . . . no.

Bonhams should not have conducted the auction and since they did, they should have refused the Buyer's money until matters were resolved; instead, Bonhams conducted the appearance of a legitimate auction to gather finances, and then they make the Buyer fight to get his money back. That is just plain WRONG from the get-go.

One should not offer for sale goods if one does not have clear title. There is a UK law designed to eliminate just such "sales" and the inevitable result of wasteful battles and litigation just as is now occurring.

My information is that the Buyer did not take possession. Please post source of contrary info if anyone has it.

Swaters affidavit states she was put under pressure with theats that the auction would be cancelled and the harm to the car would be bad, just as they did the day before when they told both Swaters and Gardner that they must settle all claims with Ford and Lawson or the auction will be cancelled. As to the Zanotti threat, Swaters resisted at first then she acquiesced. As to settle with Ford/Lawson threat the day before, her attorney did contact my Ohio attorney, who did not settle. That probably precipitated the next day signing the Conditions of Sale docs as a fabricated cover for unauthorized action.

Markleson's affidavit does not square with the record, nor with Gardner's attorneys record as for delays due to the existing Status Quo order preventing any movement of parts - it is makes false statements all curiously in accord with the koolaid, and are easily rebutted, IMHO. Further, lately, I do not think Markleson is credible due to recent arrest, ban from classic car events for misrepresentations, etc. as will come out if and when he becomes a witness.

All IMHO.

Joe

*

 

Bill the mystery to me is that if Bonham's relied on Gardner to settle with Zanotti and Gardner did not have the full authority to accept that L1,000,000 would be ducted from the Ohio share of 50% of Hammer why would anyone but Gardner and Bonham's be responsible for the L2MM? If JS was willing to have L1MM deducted from their share they certainly relied on Gardner's "authority" to have L1MM deducted from the Ohio Share. They too may have a case against Gardner for damages if he didn't in fact have full authority. I don't see how JS could be on the hook for any part of the L2MM as it was only payable from their share of an auction sale that may have not had the authority to proceed not because of them and give the buyer clear title not because of them. I think it very strange that Zanotti is not in the posted pleadings assuming they are complete and real. Am I missing something?

Why pay Zanotti unless you had CLEAR right from everyone to sell the car and deduct it from the persons granting that right? If the Zanotti claim is bogus why not postpone the sale, refute the Zanotti claim and cross claim against Zanotti for damages delay caused if Zanotti claim was in fact bogus?

All of this makes less and less sense. Personally I can't see anyone making an offer at auction without clear tile and the ability to register the car where they live which in this case is the US. Personally I wouldn't pay off a claim I beleived to be bogus but would instead defend it.
Am I missing something?

 

Joe, I am not suggesting otherwise, I simply do not understand the actions of the buyer. He had a choice, either pay you $25m "without prejudice" or bid in the auction without the comfort you were offering him. For what ever reason Copley chose the later option and ended up with a cheap car (by your valuation) and a problem.

The obvious question is how much do you think the car would have sold for had you all been in agreement ?

The simple maths is 50% of $25m is equivalent to 70% of $18m (unless you were after more)

 

+1 especially when OJ was offering them a "without prejudice deal"

 

or the market has bottomed.

 

LIONS & TIGERS & BEARS, OH, MY.
GIVE IT A REST FOLKS. I'M THE ONLY ONE WITH ' NO SHIN IN THE GAME " , AS GARDNER LIKES TO SAY OF ME. I LIKE JOEY FORD. I UNDERSTAND GARDNER. THEY ARE NOW MORTAL ENEMIES WHERE BEFORE THEY WERE OK WITH EACH OTHER. THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS THAT OF MASTER & SERVANT. THAT IS A LEGAL PHRASE.

THE FACT IS JOEY HAD A DEAL TO SPLIT 50-50 WITH GARDNER. JOEY GOT A BAD CASE OF HUBRIS ( LOOK IT UP ). NOT SATISFIED WITH WHAT WOULD NOW BE $4,500,000 OLD JOE WANTED MORE. HE IS AT GREAT RISK, IN MY OPINION, OF WINDING UP WITH NOTHING. KLEVE IS ANOTHER MATTER--- I WISH HER ALL THE LUCK . BUT OLD OCEAN JOE, IN MY OPINION, IS 'UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE ' & WITHOUT THE FUNDS TO PURSUE A COMPLICATED CLAIM IN THE LONDON HIGH COURT. WORRY NOT ABOUT LES WEXLER, FOLKS. HE CAN TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF. AS TO MY OLD FRIEND JOEY FORD---- HE SHOULD NOT SLANDER THIS OLD PORTUGUESE JEW. HE MIGHT ANNOY ME . SO FAR HE HAS ONLY AMUSED ME. BUT THERE ARE STILL A FEW RACERS AROUND WHO REMEMBER "THE PROFESSOR " THAT'S ME -- AND HOW I TOOK OUT A TRANSGRESSOR AND HIS SPORTS CAR . NEXT LAP I WOULD RUN HIM OFF THE TRACK--- AND ENJOY DOING IT. AS A FAMOUS MANAGER ONCE SAID , " NICE GUYS FINISH LAST ". MAYBE ? BUT, FOR SURE, NICE GUYS DON'T WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. WELL, OCEAN JOE FORD --- I HAVE WON SEVERAL CHAMPIONSHIPS ON LAND AND SEA. NOW--- SHUT THE **** UP.

 

here we go again, another sock puppet goes into action ( new alias )

can the mods check into validity of this poster, as the content of this post smacks of similar already banned posters

 

I think you are being rather harsh as he's been a member longer than you have and his public profile gives a lot more information than your repetitive N/A