375+ # 0384

I hundred percent agree that everything needs to be treated with suspicion. For me the enjoyment of this thread is reading between the lines (IMHO's and all) and trying to interpret what is actually going on. The Court transcripts were the most illuminating (assuming they are not fakes) as it gave both sides of the argument and the judges opinion.

We can see from the Whitman emails that OJ and Gardner were an the same side in 2011 and talking about a 50/50 split. They also had an agreement between them to share the proceeds from the recovery equally. They also worked together when OJ was in contempt for breaching the status quo later that year through to 2012. Where the relationship appears to have broken down was with the HOA as OJ was clearly unhappy with the settlement, even though he signed.

Like you, I can't help thinking that it would have been better for OJ to co-operate with the Bonhams sale and also think that his wrecking antics effected the value for all. Don't forget, the Gardner stiffing for 100% came after the 2013 contempt order and the failure to deliver the parts.

K

PS: Salted cod went out with Nelson but like you Kiwi's, I love lamb (although not necessarily in the same way)

 

I caution to avoid using the word "opinion" only because it law, it means a different thing beyond mere opinion. Here, it is more accurate to say the Judge is processing the arguments, asking questions, and thinking out loud. The Judge's end conclusion, if any, is what is put in an Order. The Order is what counts, and it is what gets appealed or not when not in accordance with law and jurispriudence. Quoting from a transcript is tricky because the processing in the beginning of a hearing may change 180 degrees by the time you reach the end of the transcript.

Kim, the split occurred earlier (late Aug 2011ish) when I put Gardner in default when he fell behind paying attorneys. Then, it got worse when Gardner refused to hire an attorney that Haas needed because Haas was a one man shop, focused on a criminal practice. Haas aranged the new attorney interview, we approved, and as agreed that new attorney sent her retainer agreement direct to Gardner -- and he never paid it.

Unbeknownst to me at the time, in Jan of 2012, Gardner had vowed a vendetta to "finially trash joey for good." He strung me along to keep me going while he devised his scheme. So, it is incorrect to think it started after the HOA.

For me and Lawson, the HOA promised a pay-day within six months. We were ahead in Ohio litigation so we agreed to HOLD the litigation, to sell, and we conditioned the end of Ohio litigation on payment to the OC of the proceeds. We intended to attend the auction and have a "happy family" closing where we all signed - i.e. closure. The HOA had no reference to POA's for a closing. We did not sign a standard Bonhams consignment and it was not incorporated into the HOA. Note that the Ohio court retained jurisdiction until distribution of proceeds, while disputes arising out of the HOA would be for London.

The first step in implementing the HOA was to lift the April 23, 2010 Status Quo Order and enter an agreement to end Ohio litigation, thus the Haas April 18, 2013 Proposed Order. After agreeing to sign it, Swaters' unjustifiably refused to sign it. Something was amiss.

It is VERY important to read the Haas April 18, 2013 Proposed Order. Read what Swaters refused to sign. Once Swaters refused to sign, the HOA was dead in the water. Attached is Haas Ap 18, 2013 Proposed Order in full. Note how it disclosed officially the Ohio BMV title status and the current Ohio title, approved by Gardner's attorney. Note too that there is no place for a contingent lien on an Ohio title. Note paragraph 5 where we had retained Ohio jurisdiction during the STAY, and would end it on distribution of proceeds. I was ready to ship the parts once signed. Haas was attorney for Lawson, Ford, and Gardner and it what we (OC) ALL agreed on. We looked forward to a payday in six months -- that is what we bargained for.

The new evidence I have now will show the HOA was not a contract for new reasons.

No, Gardner had stopped making required payments in late 2011. The grab for 100% is long after the Gardner breach of payments and after the Gardner Jan 4, 2013 London fiasco. I now realize the Jan 4, 2013 London fiasco was part of the Gardner vendetta.


Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This is the attachment from a May 14, 2013 email.

Note the jurisdiction passages - para. 4 and 5. Ohio litigation was to be merely interrupted, pending distribution of funds.

This gives insight into what we agreed on and did not agree on, and give insight into the meaning and process we intended.

It may also show that the HOA was an agreement to agree, meaning there were things to further negotiate and in need of agreement.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Condition precedent
Condition precedent (CP) refers to an event or state of affairs that is required before something else will occur. In contract law, a condition precedent is an event which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due, i.e., before any contractual duty erects.
Condition precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condition_precedentWikipedia


It is my view that condition precedents existed in the Ford gardner Finance Agreement and the HOA. Specifically, condition precedents existed as to:

1) Gardner perfecting his lien
2) Ending Ohio litigation*

*In the HOA, we agreed to promptly enter an agreement to end Ohio litigation, not, as Swaters demanded, to promptly end it.

I realize this is boring, but here is where the rubber meets the road as to legal analysis and court outcomes, IMHO.

Joe

*

 

Not according you your post 1025 page 52 on 25th September 2013

 

2013 is correct, 2014 is a typo.

I think that typo is obvious, especially with the many prior references to Jan 4, 2013.

My statement is accurate. An unbiased person would see that.

Joe

*

 

Funny how anyone who ever questions you is either Biased, a fraud, Gardner in disguise or a "crazy old guy"

 

Joe

What do you think happened to the money paid to Mark Daniels ?

K

 

You realize, don't you, that the HoA does not provide that Swaters v. Lawson and Ford shall be stayed pending the auction and the distribution of proceeds? The only thing the HoA says about a stay is that "OC warrants and represents to BC and to Bonham’s that THEY have full authority . . . to stay all litigation in Ohio relating to the Car." Even that statement is not literally true. Only the Court has "full authority" to stay the litigation. I bring it up to have a little fun with the fact that the only reason the litigation was effectively stayed pending sale was Judge Nadel's two erroneous, extra-jurisdictional orders to dismiss -- both of which you have appealed.

Just another day at the Irony Factory.

And by the way, whoever wrote this piece of crap HoA ought to be disbarred. It really is a poorly written document, unacceptable if the car were an '85 Buick. That the parties to an 8-figure transaction created and relied on such a mess is incredible.

 

A bold assumption that they were a qualified in the first place !

 

Joe,

Who did the original writing of the HoA? You & Lawson, Gardner, Swatters or Bonhams? How much rewriting was there from the ensuing comments of each contingent?

 

Based on what I have seen, and they have not been very forthcoming:

On Nov 19, 2012 Gardner and I are going back and forth with email points of what to include if we do something with Bonhams. I email to Gardner "Shorter Bonhams Bullets" and Gardner replies that Bonhams (or so he says) already has acceptance on the bulk of these points. Gardner's email details exactly which are agreed, and the Stay-Auction-Distribute-Dismiss is one of the agreed points.

Dec 15, 2012 meet set to be in London. Swaters unable to attend.

Jan 4, 2013 meet set to be in London. This is the fiasco where Bonhams, after dealing only with Gardner, asks basically "who are you, Gardner never told us of your [Ford] role . . . ." I now know that what was going on was part of a Gardner vendetta - to say he was the owner rather than a financier.

A tense few weeks follow, then the HOA that we signed appears, incorporating enough bullet points so that we sign it with its STAY of Ohio litigation for a 50/50 payday within six months; if money is paid to Ohio Contingent, then we dismiss Ohio litigation. That STAY-AUCTION-DISTRIBUTE-DISMISS sequence of events is a departure from what Bonhams originally wanted.

Bonhams drafted the HOA.

Joe


*

 

HOA events, as described, leading to its' eventual signing, indicate parties were under the gun to perform, aka duress to perform... signatures provided under duress can be nullified, if the desired effect is to nullify the HoA

 

Kim i think you admitted your bias.

 

You can add my support for one third of the OC (Kleve's daughter) to team BC which equates to 100% of the original owners in my book

 

+1

 

Karl Kleve was the owner. Kristi Kleve Lawson is his heir.
Florence Swaters as the Belgium Contingent carries on her father's involvement with the stolen property- however people care to characterize it, but not owner and certainly not original.

 

+1

 

So OK - and we might disagree - but would you care to comment on the rest of the OC contingement?

 

What I fail to understand is why Swaters was never taken to court in Belgium as well (the minute that Kleves discovered its existance) - there is little doubt that the "stolen portion" belonged to Kelve.

A question that remains to be answered is why Swaters re-numbered the chassis. (a question that should have been answered by him in a court of law and not idle speculation, such as believing this was done with the intent to use statute of limitations to his advantage).

Another big question mark, given the importance of the purchase and Swaters' evident and unquestionable knowledge on the subject matter, what evidence would he have had that the purchase was done "in good faith"?

Irrespective of the value of the 375 at the time when Swaters "purchased", it was surely an extremely rare "purchase" of historical significance. How could have Swaters ever justified such a purchase without the proper a due dilligence that would be expected, and demanded, for such a transaction.

What "provenance" did Swaters believe these "parts" had?

It certainly looks like Swaters could have been brought before court on both Civil and Criminal charges.

The involvement of Bonhams is even more puzzling -

 

So boring.

Why don't we talk about Jacques Swaters possessing and hiding a stolen car.

 

You are supposed to imagine the things Jacques did while alive and get all misty eyed with nostalgia and then conveniently forget the facts surrounding the purchase. Apparently.

Jacques was an amazing man by all accounts but this was certainly the nadir of his life's work. And it would have been good to have seen justice done, either way, back in 1990 it would have saved a lot of tears. There again we wouldn't have this thread if a court had of resolved the claims of theft against him.

 

I find the suggestion you can actually hide a 375+ quite funny but more to the point why do you and others consistantly single out Jaques Swaters as the villan ?

What's about the Belgium motor dealer who was the one that first bought the car and had it cleared by the Belgium authorities so he could legally (in Belgium) sell it on ?

What about Swaters joint owner Lancksweert ?

An finally what about Mark Daniels ? He was given Karl Kleves POA and gave Swaters/Lancksweert all the title documents in return for $625,000. Finding out what he did with the money and joining him in the legal action was an obvious way for OJ to prove the alleged 1999 settlement fraud. Why does he never get a mention ?

As seen in the OJ/Whitman emails, Florence Swaters was seen as the easy target and encouraging posting of "biased" (we can all be accused of being biased) attacks on her father is the most effective way to get a settlement. The Kleve heirs and Florence Swaters may not be the legal owners of 0384AM but to me, morally they are and it is a shame to see they are being marginalised by others. In Kristie Kleves case it's even worse as we now know what OJ paid for his share and the likelihood is, what little she will get, will be spent on litigation on both sides of the pond.

 

So we all agree that it was in fact a theft.

Imagine if I someone were to take the "bulk" up now and take it to, lets say Iran...wait 10 years, and then put it on the market again with another world known auctioneer.

The statute of limitations has been mentioned many times on this thread, but I remember very well from basic Civil Law classes, that "register-able" property has very different statues of limitations for property that is not register-able.

I doubt Jacques could have ever sufficiently proven "good faith" in a court of law.