That whooshing sound was Joe Ford's attorneys breathing a gale force sigh of relief. PERIOD? You've been taking speechwriting lessons from Obama. But you left out the "let me be clear." He won't like that. Judge Martin's order to deny Gardner's December 2013 motion to reform the "70/30" title relied ON the ground that the HoA was effective and that it had given Bonhams sole discretion with respect to the title. I don't care to go through Judge Martin's other orders, but if you can point to one in which he reversed his December 2013 posture that would save a lot of time. What I wrote is that your Answer and Crossclaim did not allege that the HoA entirely ceased to be effective after Bonhams failed to auction the car at the September 2013 Goodwoods Festival. That is not the same thing as a general denial of another party's allegation that the goal of the HoA was to dispose of and to liquidate the parties' claims in the Swaters v Lawson and Ford case. This kind of Internet bickering can get very tedious. In fact this one started out tedious and has become exasperating. Next stop, infuriating. The issue is, did the parties' agreement that each would deliver his/her hardware, documents, etc., to Bonhams,and that Bonhams would auction the collected goods, survive the impossibility of performing these things on September 15, 2013? Your October 31, 2013 Answer and Cross-Complaint does not say that it did not survive. Rather, you ask the court, at the conclusion of some future trial, date TBA, to declare your rights and duties under the HoA, as well as those of Gardner. Combine this request with the fact that six weeks later, three lawyers who claimed to speak for you argued to Judge Martin that Bonhams had sole discretion to dispose of the parties' claims with respect to the form of an Ohio title, and that this was not going to happen until after Bonhams had sold the car at some future auction, and what you get is a party who is not contending that the parties' agreement that Bonhams should sell the car had died in September 2013. How many of these did you tell the whole story, including that you and Lawson made it impossible for Bonhams to perform that auction? (Ans: None) Judge Nadel's "Ans," all three times he was asked: No. Although I disagree with that "Ans," I'm theorizing that Judge Nadel saw no substantive difference between dismissal of the claims, with the retention of sufficient jurisdiction to hear such post-auction applications as the parties needed to make to finalize the auction sale, and an order not to dismiss but instead to keep the file open for that same very limited purpose. Under the HoA, this is all the jurisdiction that the parties agreed to leave in the Ohio court: to hear such applications and to make such orders as may be necessary to finalize the auction sale. Citation, please. As I explained several pages back, when parties agree to dispose of their litigation claims with a Settlement Agreement and Release ("SAR"), their litigation claims cease to exist. In place of their original claims, the parties now have a set of duties to perform. If a party breaches one of these duties, the court retains jurisdiction to grant relief to any aggrieved party. The underlying claims are dismissed with prejudice, which means that the party asserting the claim has lost the right ever to assert it again. But the party has a new right, a right to performance of the SAR by the other parties. If you want to call the parties' post-judgment performance of their duties under a SAR a "condition," feel free. It's the substance of these concepts that matters, not the name. I think this often escapes you, that it is the substance of the thing that matters, not every little "gotcha" that you can spot along the way. People enter into agreements in order to accomplish something, not to set each other up for claims of insubstantial breaches. I don't want to review Swaters' every move between March and August 2013 to decide if she breached some insubstantial duty to perform. Her only substantial duty of performance consisted of delivering the car to Bonhams in time for the September auction. You and Lawson refused to perform your similar duty, to deliver your hardware and documents to Bonhams. Did this cause Swaters to delay her performance, or to ask for a modification to the HoA? (Merely to ask for a modification, with nothing more, would not constitute a breach.) Did she stand ready to perform in good faith? It seems to me that if she delivered the car to the Bonhams tent on September 14, that would be substantial performance. By contrast, what did you and Lawson actually do in the nature of performance? All I get is that you immediately started accusing Swaters of one breach or another. I'm sorry, I don't want to review the history and create a chronology of who did what when. My impression is that you and Lawson were the first to go off the reservation, causing Swaters to fear that you did not intend to perform in good faith. If that impression isn't correct, c'est la guerre. Straighten me out if you like, or don't. I'm just a guy with a keyboard and an Internet account. Who cares what I think is true or false? Yes, I get it. We can copy this formulation and paste it in every post. I get it. The problem is that this formulation is of such recent vintage. It does not appear that you shared it with anyone in March 2013, or that you included it in the HoA prior to everyone signing the HoA. This leaves it a matter of construction of contract, what did the parties to the HoA intend to happen if their failure to perform in Summer 2013 made it impossible for Bonhams to auction the car on September 15? You contend that the parties intended on September 16 to revive their three-year-old litigation and to dive back into that whole vat of muck. I find that very hard to believe. So do three of the five parties to the HoA. So does every court which has heard an application since September 2013. As to Lawson, I don't see her as particularly enthusiastic to jump in either. I sure don't see the upside for her, and I see a lot of downside. Why so mysterious? Your previews of this fraud in the inception, or whatever is the NEW EVIDENCE, longer than Hollywood does a Major Motion Picture. Why so reticent? Waiting for Oscar season?
+1 to the power of infinity. Btw MR Seespotrun, is that you Chris..... Yes or no will be sufficient answer.
Dear Sir, Thank you for your comments. I would like for you to re-read my post and then listen to the attached taped deposition from Karl Kleve. Dated 10/28/1998 I especially like the part where Kleve states that he has hired a party to REPOSESS THAT CAR [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWvJGV_3NNU]October 28, 1998 Karl Kleve Video Deposition by Tim Smith, Esq. - YouTube[/ame] You should look at 2 things in that statement. What was the stated agreement for, money or the recovery of a car? Do you know what Kleve paid that recovery service when they were hired to recover the newly restored Ferrari? Karl Kleve also stated the same in his many interviews with investigators and other interested parties over the years. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on how the Hulk passed thru (if listed stolen) all of the governing agencies, states and countries including but not limited to: Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, All Police agencies for those states, The FBI, US Customs, Interpol, Belgium Police, Belgium Customs, the country of Belgium, the country of France, the country of Germany, the country of Italy, (where the car was restored). And are you of the belief that the 375 Plus while at Ferrari, was known to be stolen and Ferrari did nothing. This is really becoming somewhat of a stretch .. Dont you think? Remember: In 1989/1990 the European Union was not yet formed so this hulk had to stop at all of the listed countries border checks. Either you believe these countries, states, or agencies are incompetent and could not locate an allegedly stolen Ferrari Grand Prix racer in partially dismantled condition. OR You accept the fact that Kleve could not list the Hulk stolen for lack of title, lack of VIN number and no proof of ownership. Green Township Police department did everything according to book. I salute them since they did everything correctly and the Ferrari was NOT listed stolen until 1997 then released in 1999.
There's a lot here. It's all either BS or intentionally misleading. All self-serving. Mostly it's BS. The majority of your posts under the SEESPOTRUN name have only one goal: to attempt to re-write and revise the history (in other words, Lie) in your favor. Perhaps you hope a new audience to this thread will not click through and see that in most of your 29 posts you state over and over again the same factually incorrect, deliberately deceitful BS narrative. You are financially motivated to post false history on this thread. Any new reader should know that. It's incredibly delusional of you to try to spoon feed me what you want of Mr. Kleve's selected deposition. As you know, I knew Karl Kleve from my involvement in the case in 1990 until the time of his death in 2003. You don't even know where Green Township is. You don't know the significance of living there (as opposed to Western Hills, or Bridgetown, etc., etc.). I can show you on bing or google earth the exact spot on the (now developed) land where I recovered what the thieves didn't get. Again, I'm the wrong guy to try to do an end run around on this thread. Perhaps you've advised your new friends not to look at Page 1 of this thread, starting with Post #12 or so. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/138135184-post12.html Oops! Too late. Yes I do. We don't need any more of your false history.
How can people ignore the fact that people were taken to court and convicted for the theft of the "hulk"? The fact is was stolen - the "car" was in Kleves possession. All of the posters here tend to forget that only 20/30/40 years ago titles didn't concern many people, it was very common that cars were sold without the title transfer. This has only changed recently. The formality of the title and in who's name the title was in should NOT be interpreted as to question the rightful ownership. (at the time)
Posts #2449 and #2453 are part of a concerted effort to create an alternate history and the reason for it is purely financial. It's a ruse on behalf of someone trying to 'publish' a story that benefits them. Ocean Joe has repeatedly pointed this out over the last year during the endless game of whack-a-mole. As one identity gets banned, another pops up and spins the same fiction in the hope that something will stick.
Dave Powers for president.......... I couldn't agree more, you have said everything I would've in the last two posts, although more eloquently I might add. Hope all is well
I think Bills "knickers in a twist" is a much better headline It?s pants: lingerie king wants money back on £11m Ferrari | The Sunday Times Mr Wexner should sack his PR company !
One thing is absolutely sure - Bonhams clearly withheld information, or at the very least, was grossly negligent. There is a legal principle since the times of the Romans - the greater and significant the "deal", the more due care is expected by the law. This is even more so for individuals who have the subject of contention as their "habitual" profession. London court will undoubtedly understand this. I would go as far as pressing for punitive damages against Bohmans, and maybe even "criminal" (fraud) charges could also be brought forth. Fraudulent misrepresentation: Under contract law, a plaintiff can recover against a defendant on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation if (1) a representation was made; (2) that was false; (3) that when made, the representation was known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth; (4) that it was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it; (5) that the plaintiff did rely on it; and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
The SeeSpotRun identity, IMHO, is either Guy Anderson or Christopher Gardner, or the pair in some sort of agreement. Guy Anderson, yes the one from 1989, sent a claim of ownership to Bonhams in November of 2013. Bonhams kept this claim secret from us for many months. I am still waiting on details. Anderson managed to convince a Jacksonville, Florida attorney to help make the claim. I spoke to this attorney. The attorney, who sounds like a good guy, liked Healeys, and had a car deal with Anderson since the late 80's I think involving a Healey. That attorney, as far as I know, wrote only one letter and I thought the claim then died a natural death. I later learn that Anderson also tried to recruit a UK attorney to press the claim and that effort did not succeed. I know this UK attorney also and have spoken with him on repeated occaisions. Anderson, IMHO fraudulently, since 1989, had and then recently renewed a Georgia registration for 0384AM. And for the record, Kleve's stolen Ferrari was listed as stolen, the VIN "0384AM" was added to the theft report and database a few days after the Jan. 24, 1989 initial theft report listing by police. Interpol knew it and had a case # assigned to it as well. The reason Kleve's stolen Ferrari was able to escape US customs detection is because the exporter fraudulently declared it as "automobile parts" -- the FBI suspected an experienced theft ring at work because of the use of that deceptive description. Any other European country border crossings were likely using the counterfeit 0394AM identity. The more I learn about the rapidity of the export, the fraudulent export and import documents, etc. the more I agree with the FBI. IMHO, this entire saga is nothing more than a very sophisticated, interational attempt to launder a very valuable stolen car. IMHO, the recent attempt to auction without owner permission is just another type of theft, the objective being to trick a buyer into thinking "all is well" and trick him into paying BIG money and then to abuse the court system by making the victim have to go to court in order to get his money back. Bonhams was repreatedly warned not to do it, yet Bonhams did it anyway. It ain't right. Fine print doesn't cure it. Joe *
It difficult to speculate on what the claim is as we do not have a copy of the Copley/Wexner writ against Bonhams but you can get a clue as to what they are actually claiming from the Florence Swaters defence posted on the "other site". You also get an idea of what Bonhams are saying in their defence. It is also illuminating to read the other information on the site. The Bonhams writ against Ford/Lawson for damages gives another opinion. They are also after the declaration that the HOA remained effective after the 2013 auction, so OJ has his opportunity to put his case to the London High Court What confuses me is where this is all heading and what OJ is hoping will happen. OJ helpfully posted his speculation of events a couple of weeks ago and it would be great if he would update it with the new information (true or false) that is coming out. 1. The stakeholder claim is not stayed and OJ is now claiming 100% of all of the proceeds. All parties are in disagreement. Gardner now has a long stop date of June 2015 to get OJ into arbitration to settle the attorney/financier argument but it now appears that OJ is counter claiming against Lawson. Suffice is to say, this is not going to be settled quickly 2. Bonhams have posted a defence against the recission and counter claimed against Copley/Wexner. Likewise, Swaters is defending and counter claiming against Bonhams. Bonhams are also suing Ford/Lawson and we can no doubt expect a claim from Garner and from OJ with his "game changing" new evidence. Suffice is to say, this is not going to be settled quickly 3. In answer to Superleggera's question in post 2446. If there is no sale and the stakeholder claim is dismissed then are we not back at the beginning, albeit with everyone out of pocket ? Florence will have her car and the OC will have their claim. 4. Zanotti. I'm with OJ on this one. Otherwise, I think we are missing a 5. as OJ is still trying to resurrect the original breach of contract case in Ohio. I have no idea, if successful, what this does to the London litigation but will say with confidence, suffice is to say this is not going to be settled quickly !
What of Allen Markelson (who allegedly found the restored car in the private museum at Modena with his pal Chris Gardner)? Reckoned he was due a finders fee......Joe will know of him.
Joe, Can you post a copy of the bill of lading showing "automobile parts" or any other export documents with 0394AM on it ? K
Dear Sir, I do not mind that you may believe the Disney Tale related to this vehicle. I am not even trying to win you over. For me, I posted the reason the car was not seized in response to a question. If you believe the Tale then GREAT, we agree to disagree. This is F-chat and we are discussing how, where, and why. I am only setting the facts out for all to see and F-chat members are mature enough to make their own assessment. Furthermore, I am not going to call you out on neither the BS nor the statement that I have prospered on this chat thread. Actually, that was really funny and I did get a real kick out of that one. I have no interest in turning this into a smut discussion. Perhaps that could be left to another site. This thread is about #0384 the carcass and nothing more. So please answer these questions and help us all understand what you think you know. . Where is the original title? Where is the Police supplement with the VIN number? Where is the current NCIC report? Why did Kleve not have insurance on the HULK since he inherited an insurance company? (and yes I know what type of insurance co he inherited) What was the final cost that Kleve paid for the prisoners to clean up the Harrison lot and crush his junk? What happened to the spare engine of the Ferrari 375 Plus? What happened to the remainder of the parts that were not listed? Where is a picture of Kleve with the Ferrari? Everyone else has been photographed with this car since 1954! Where is the picture of you and Kleve cleaning up the junk? Why did the Green Township Police state in March of 1989 that there was not a valid police report on any Ferrari. Why did Kleve tell all in town he received his Ferrari back, when in fact it was sitting in Europe. Why did Kleve not pick the junks transported to the abandoned Movie Theater after they were seized. Who started the rumor about Kleve being a Nuclear Scientist? Who has the picture of the Hulk stuck in the mud with a tree growing through it? Has Kleve ever restored any vehicle, he reverse engineered, that you know of? I was doing a telephone interview with one of the 4 defendants THIS WEEKEND in regard to the alleged stolen Ferrari. He has never heard of you! He has never heard of any of the names associated with this site. His question to me was: Who on this site has first hand knowledge about this Ferrari? Would that be you? Did you ever see the Ferrari you are talking about? Oh by the way, they won in Atlanta against charges of Interstate Transport of a stolen vehicle, and a second charge of conspiracy. The vehicle was considered abandoned and the purchase price of 50,000.00 was considered a good faith purchase. Please post for us all to see, who went to jail for a stolen vehicle.
Plasmaman, is that you. Havent heard from you since May 2013 when you made the only other posts you have ever made in this thread. Funny that you aren't interested in any other Ferrari. Do you know anyone living in Switzerland? Just saying.
There are a lot of new documents to read on the "other site" as OJ calls it and I have just read through volume two of Fords Deposition given on 6th May 2014 On page 291 Ford confirms that he gave Mr Dave Clark authority to solicit offers of $25m for he car on the basis Bonhams did not have the authority to sell it On page 296 Ford confirms that Mr Dave Clark was in contact with Wexner/advisors. One page 303 Ford confirms he gave Clark a copy of the 19th August court order, the Ohio BMV and Judge Martins transcript of 17th January to prove that Bonhams authority had expired and he still owned the registered title. On page 307 when asked if Wexner may now be discouraged to bid at the Bonhams auction, Ford replies that "he is not going to buy at auction" The two questions I would like to know are: Mr Ford, why did Mr Wexner bid at the auction against your advise and evidence ? Mr Wexner, why did you bid and why are you now claiming recision of the contract based upon legal documentation you knew of before bidding ?
Read the deposition testimony carefully, without bias, post it to a timeline, and you will have your answers. Note that the questioning attorney fails to ask the "when" as to the acts he inquires upon. WHEN did Clark have that contact that was being discussed? Five months before the May 6, 2014 deposition? Four months earlier? Three months earier? Two months? One month? IMHO obvious answer is that subsequent to hearing from Clark, Bonhams misrepresented that all relevant litigation was settled - and the bidder, like all bidders who bid, trusted Bonhams. Further, IMHO Bonhams deliberately withheld FROM ALL the material fact that the OHIO BMV had put a hold on the title blocking any conveyance OFFICIALLY, DUE TO PENDING OWNERSHIP LITIGATION. There is no way to avoid or downplay that fact. IMHO honest auction houses do not act as Bonhams did. I now believe Bonhams knew about the official Ohio BMV block weeks before I knew, and Bonhams kept it a secret. You live in the UK. Does UK law require an auction house disclose the fact of pending ownership litigation in connection with the auction of a high-profile, multi-million dollar collectible? Does UK law require a "seller" have clear title prior to offering a good for sale? Can Bonhams honestly claim reliance on Swaters or Gardner representations when Bonhams was itself put on notice of the pending ownership litigation? Joe *
Joe this is a very simple question. Rather than deflect and regurgitate the same old points, why not just tell us when Clark gave your supporting evidence to Wexner and why you believe he ignored your advice, in the meantime I will go back to reading the numerous documents and try to fill in the blanks
I am no lawyer but even I can see that Bonhams had a responsibility to advise potential bidders of any legal issues in relation to the lot. Whether or not that was a legal responsibility or simply a moral one will be argued in court. What I find interesting in your post above is the declaration of re-assurance to bidders from Bonhams. At point Bonhams didn't just subtly allow bidders to decide the merits of the legal battle on their own by perhaps posting an innocuous in the tent but instead jumped the shark by declaring to their key bidders that legal action has ended. Hell they might as well have sent a press release to the media. In my view that is a huge point of difference. But I know jack about British law so I just don't know if they broke the law by making their declaration to LW's to agents. Following on from this, were Bonhams manipulating the situation for their own gain or were they being manipulated by one of the HOA. Maybe another HOA agent was pressuring them with claims and Bonhams themselves bought into the scam by not checking his claims to have bought 100% of the Ohio interests. As an example of this manipulation why wouldn't it be in Florence Swaters best interests to work towards a sale and distribution of proceeds and yet someone was working to ensure she couldn't take part in any discussion with the other HOA(s). A key point for me, In all of the discussion about the HOA we still have no idea what actually took place when Chris went to Belgium and did a deal. Anything as yet undisclosed could be a great motivator to keep Florence and Joe from ever meeting or negotiating. Looking back at comments from Chris/ Max he simply gloats "I went to Florence and did a deal", never any talk of detail. Just saying.
I am with you on your opinion on the conduct of Bonhams and read the Swaters defence of the Bonhams claim as she states that it was Bonhams not Chris who first contacted her in November 2012 with a suggested deal. However the transcript of Fords Depositon in May 2014 raises an interesting question on what the buyer was aware of before the auction and why he chose to ignore the sound of the alarm bells that were clearly sounding. One could suggest he turned down OJ's risk free offer of $25m in favour of buying a cheaper but problematical car at auction.
