375+ # 0384

Timmmmy, I like you have read and enjoyed the 128 pages of this thread and watching the saga unfold and also like you "would like to see justice for Karl Kleve" which "must encompass some compensation for his heir". However, sadly the prospect of this not only looking increasingly unlikely but there is now a real risk that the mounting litigation will end up costing Kristi Lawson dearly.

In your post, I do not understand why you have included Gardner in your selective list of perpetrators but have omitted OJ, when they are effectively in the same boat. After all, they were a united 50/50 partnership in this venture up until OJ walked away from the HOA settlement. What is the difference between OJ claiming 100% from Gardner for "financier" default on top of counter claiming against Lawson and Gardner claiming 100% of his "attorneys" share ?

As far as justice is concerned, I have always thought that auctioning the car and splitting the proceeds 50/50 was a fair outcome and at the time, the parties that signed the HOA agreed with me. What is your view ?

As far as closure is concerned, I predict that there will be no winners and that all parties ( except the paid legal advisors ) will have cause to regret the eventual outcome and the decisions they have made along the way.

Kim

 

Confusing indeed. How can a new ownership declare so, retrospectively, to something that has already occurred in the past ?

Kim

 

Unless I'm missing something, the only way that Kristi Lawson comes away empty-handed is if there is a finding that she had sold her interests in #0384, either to Ford or Gardner. We can still believe that the amount of money she agreed to accept in exchange for selling her interests was inadequate or disproportionate to the point of injustice. But if there is a finding that she agreed to accept this amount and that she did transfer her interests to the buyer, others may equally agree that it would be unjust for her to receive more money than the amount she agreed to accept.

This is one of the great unknowns to me: where is Kristi Lawson's share of the OC's 50% to be adjudicated? The Gardner v. Ford arbitration is not the place, unless she agrees to participate and be bound by the result. The Swaters v. Lawson, Ford & Gardner case might be suitable, if she has filed a cross-claim against Ford and Gardner in that case. However, this dispute might be construed as a "dispute in relation to" the HoA, triggering that agreement's London High Court choice of forum provision. Yeah, now that I've thought about it, it seems likely that the HoA's choice of law/choice of forum provision will apply. But not 100%

 

Easy -- your premis is wrong. As to any past act, NO prior owner conveyed ownership nor exported permanently.

Daniels was not a prior owner and the document Swaters claims to rely upon for conveyance by an agent was proven to be altered. At best, Swaters may have a claim for reimbursement from Kleve for $625,000 IF Swaters can show he reasonably relied upon Daniels.

We have 1999 documents that show Swaters' New York attorneys did not believe in Daniels so they made Daniels sign to be PERSONALLY liable for the $625,000 and cut checks in a manner that did not match the alleged Settlement doc, thus my argument is that Swaters must look to Daniels if Swaters seeks reimbursement. IMHO Lancksweert knew exactly what was going on in New York in 1999, deliberately far away from Kleve, and it was not kosher.

Joe

*

 

I am no lawyer so this is all fairly amateur but what concerns me is that the court has ruled that she owns 30% as part of the status quo agreement and that had been agreed to by both Ford and Gardner at the earlier stages of litigation including when the status quo was ratified by the Ohio court. OJ attempted to purchase the final 30% of #0384AM but the judge ruled that this wasn't acceptable under the status quo agreement and ratified the 70/30 % ownership split. Neither OJ nor CG, who were both making daily public proclamations on this thread at the time of the status quo hearings, made any complaints nor denials about this declaration of ownership.

However the discussion of "intent" for want of a better term is completely different. CG has changed his claim from funding the legal action in return for a lien over #0384AM to one where he claims he had purchased full ownership of #0384AM. On this topic I will be very interested to see how the court eventually rules. Maybe CG has some documents that haven't been made public that provide actual backing for the later claim to ownership rather than funding................

And finally why did CG accept KKL and OJ as HOA's if they dont have any ownership rights over #0384AM, wouldn't he have taken legal action to ensure he was the only Ohio HOA? Or am I being overly-simplistic. LOL.

 

Joe,

How many boxes of document do you have? It must be a huge amount.

Jeff

 

Check the timeline. When the HOA was signed the Ohio contingent were not in dispute. Lawson had her $75,000 from Gardner for a net 20% and the Court had overturned the deal. I cannot find the proclamations where Gardner was accepting the change but we do know that in September that year he was claiming it all back together with Fords share.

Like you, I am no lawyer, but you would expect the arbitration to award something to both Ford and Gardner for their contribution and once this is determined we will have the basis of a division of the sale proceeds held in London.

The complication and my worry for Lawson is that before she gets her payout, she has a claim in Ohio from Gardner and a claim from Bonhams in London that needs to be settled. If she is to defend her claim in London she will need to fund the proceedings and this will be very very expensive and even if she wins she will not get all her costs back

 

IMPEX …Import/Export


I am very glad that someone in this forum knows a thing or two about the import or export (IMPEX) of motor vehicle’s worldwide.

Talking about Worldwide, I often wonder what Ocean Joe believes this company; Worldwide Exchange does/did for its business practices. Could it be an Import/Export company or am I going out on a limb here?

Here is the problem with trying to decipher paperwork and events pertaining to International transactions. Interpretation needs to be left to the shipper and the consignee.

Perhaps terms like “In- Transit documents, Declaration of Ownership, Export Declaration, Certified Copy of Title, Commercial Invoice, Shippers Load Stow and Count, These Commodities Licensed US for ultimate destination Belgium, Diversion contrary to U.S. law prohibited, Bill of lading” are not familiar terms to some.

The shipment to Belgium of the carcass of Ferrari #0384 was for RESTORATION.
So why do some try to interpret the documents as anything other than what they are?

Someone please help me understand the enclosed document from post #5 dated 3/25/2010 on Jim Kimberly and other race cars in F-Chat. I must admit I am totally confused.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You thought wrong.
Of course you and I both know you don't literally mean you thought that. You're just trying to express your frustration in your typical passive-aggressive way.
You expect to be able to come to this thread and deceive at will without anyone calling you on it.
Nope(!).
Also, again, Plus 10(!) on the condescending tone.

There are no hostilities here.
You're just having a little meltdown about people calling you out.

Oh, speaking of which, WHAT'S YOUR NAME, SIR?
There's that pesky question again..
That you will never answer.
To do so would end your 'involvement' here, wouldn't it?
Yes.

Ocean Joe has suggested you're Guy Anderson or Chris Gardner.
Who knows. Who cares.
Maybe you're Gaol Accessory or Crook Fraudner...
Any of these names ring a bell?
We know you're not going to answer.
Okay. Moving on.

It's hostile to continue to deceive this thread with your smoke and mirrors all the while hiding behind a fraudulent avatar.
Knock yourself out. I'll leave the hostilities to you, Sir.

All right. I'll play along. You asked a question and here's my answer.
The money is in the chassis that you repeatedly try to diminish in referring to it as a 'hulk'.
What remains on this earth of Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM is the stolen property of the heirs of Karl Kleve.
Whatever value, whatever money is associated with that is the property of his heirs and their assigns (which would certainly include Ocean Joe who has done the work to bring this long-stolen property of the Kleve family back to the possibility of being within their grasp).
As for Chris Gardner, the man who allegedly loaned money to Ocean Joe for this pursuit and then allegedly defaulted(?). Not my concern. That's a matter for the courts.
My 'obsession' with That money is simply that it be returned to its rightful owners.
That's all.
That's it.
I have ZERO personal financial stake in the outcome of any of this.
For me it's simply a matter of principle.
I don't abide thieves or any of the transgressions that have been perpetrated in this multi-decade effort to defraud the Kleve family of what is rightfully theirs.

As for you, Alias/whatever your name is, $Money$ is the only reason you're here. 'You're gonna get paid !!!'
We'll see.

Nice try. You can't be 13% civil and 87% deceptive and misleading with the expectation that anyone will buy it. No one here is buying. Move along.

Gibberish.
What are you even talking about?
Post 2 precedes my first visit to this site by more than 2 years.
Now you're just making stuff up.

Oh, okay- so this is your fairy tale willful misstatement of the facts of the case, Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer, Esquire?
Sound great except for a little thing called Objective Reality.

Poor Effort. Zero points awarded. Do not pass Go. Go directly to Jail.

Let's not. I don't mean, 'Let's not and say we did', I mean Let's Not.

There you go again, with your favorite word- 'hostile'.
You really get the gold star for your adherence to the International Passive-Aggressive Deceptive Practices Guild.
Yay you!

This is the second time in these 120+ pages a visitor has tried to make points with the readers by 'burning me' with this little addendum.
The first was here http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143164468-post1128.html courtesy of the esteemed Monsieur Faucompre.

Let's put this one to bed.
What is important to me is that Mr. Kleve obtained 2 NOS Type 41 engines manufactured by Bugatti.
That is fact.
Whether the origin of them as told to me was correct or whether he in fact obtained them at Mr. Harrah's auction, doesn't matter.
Let me be clear. It doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to whoever owns them now. It doesn't matter to the readers of this thread and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on the case at hand.
It's just an attempt to distract, discredit, and deceive.

Oh, just one more teeny weenie little thing and I only want to whisper this to YOU ………

I learned my lesson conversing with Monsieur Faucompre.
When his attempted 'corrections' of me started to feel a little too funny, when any rational person would realize that he 'doth protest too much', I changed my tactics.

I corrected some of his 'corrections' and I let some of his incorrect statements stand.
It was readily apparent to me by those exchanges that there were, as Ocean Joe might say, 'unseen forces' at work who were fishing for anything they could scrounge to add to their 'fact-based narrative' fairy tales.
Quel dommage.
Better to let them look for their breadcrumbs elsewhere.

 

MY HOW Y'ALL DO GO ON. FINALLY, SOME FOLKS HAVE GOT IT RIGHT. STOLEN PROPERTY INDEED. FLO, IT MAY BE ALLEGED, IS AN ACCOMPLICE BEFORE THE FACT. BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, IT WILL BE ALLEGED IN LONDON HIGH COURT THAT SHE IS AN ACCOMPLICE AFTER THE FACT IN A MATTER OF A STOLEN FERRARI. OK ?

THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THAT I AM AWARE OF, THAT LIMITS THE PROSECUTION WHEN DEALING WITH THE FRAUDULENT ACT OF HIDING STOLEN PROPERTY.

SIMPLE THEFT ? YES. BUT, THERE IS NOTHING SIMPLE ABOUT THE THEFT OF THIS FERRARI 375 PLUS, A/K/A EX-JIM KIMBERLY FERRARI.

I KNEW JACQUE SWATERS. I RACED AGAINST GENTLEMAN JIM KIMBERLY. BOTH WERE EXCEPTIONAL MEN-- INTELLIGENT, WORLDLY QUITE WEALTHY AND BOTH FRIENDS OF ENZO FERRARI. THE GREAT MAN MUST BE SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE .
CIAO, CIAO

ALLEN MARKELSON, N.A.R.T

 

There are NO other documents and any CG claim to ownership is a dishonest attempt to rewrite history.

1) We have already seen the 2011.01.31 Ford-Gardner F375 Recovery finance agreement and its 2011.04.05 Change #1. [Ferrari Chat p.36, post 717; p.119, post 2378]

2) See below for Gardner's attorney's 2012.06.08 letter that describes Gardner's role as financier -- "a sponsor and financial backer. Mr. Gardner . . . input is limited to being the person who pays the bills."

3) See below for Gardner's attorney's 2013.04.18 proposed court document used by Gardner's attorney to describe a) Gardner in connection with proposed Order per HOA paragraph 3, - "1. ... and, Financier, Christopher Gardner ("CG") have entered into a Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") attached as Exhibit A" and again "Herbert J. Haas, Attorney for Financier, Christopher Gardner"- and, b) to describe the current and valid Ohio title -- this document was distributed AFTER Gardner approved it. Let me repeat - AFTER Gardner approved it.

So, my analysis is that the chances of revising history with such self-serving lies about Gardner being an owner, are zero. My analysis is that Gardner's subsequent signing of Bonhams' forms on June 27, 2014 wherein he represents himself as the "owner" capable of transfering title to the Ohio Parts and Ohio Documents are nothing other than a deliberate, public, and provable fraud - already the subject of the new Ohio case A1404305. Copley will surely use this evidence in London as well because he alleged fraud and named Gardner as a defendant.

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

 

Joe,

So how does Bonhams get from you and KK-L controlling the car to believing that CG is the sole legitimate representative of the car? Is there anything from CG/CG's side that makes such stipulations to Bonhams? CG himself or one of his emissaries?

Jeff

 

The File

Ocean Joe States: You have Zero idea much less proof of what docs were given in 1989 to export the (so called) stolen car from the US. I have the November 1989 testimony of the shipping agent as she described and testified about her shipping file and NOWHERE is there a Bill of sale or statement of value.

Ocean Joe further states: At the 1989 trial only the Bill of lading was produced---AGAIN, no mention of any Bill of Sale, Zero, zip, nada.

Question for Ocean Joe: Do you even read what you post or are you just confused?

Answer: You posted information stating that Yusen did not have the file since And--son had already picked it up. Please note the attached document; do you even remember posting that? Is this your interpretation of the events as they have happened? What in the world are you talking about?

I really like your statement that: The US Attorney prosecuting And--son was ready to nail him for selling without a dealer license, thus his testimony that merely brokered an DID NOT BUY. (Yet another And--son lie IMHO)

Are you stating as a fact, that the US Attorney, Ms. Amy Levin, stated that to you? She actually said “she was ready to nail him.” Will you please tell us more; please elaborate because inquiring minds have to know.

Furthermore, you stated: “selling without a dealers license” are you saying that you can’t sell a vehicle without a dealers license? Or, that And—son was selling the Ferrari without a dealers license? Or that one would need a dealer’s license to sell a Ferrari or sell a car. What are you talking about?

So is it your position that one would need a realtor’s license to sell ones house? Please explain, this one has my head spinning.

And when was it that it was claimed that the Ferrari was sold other than in January 1989 as an abandoned Hulk by the seller?

Would you please tell us what you think the $4,500 dollar document is?
Since you know the vehicle was shipped to Belgium for RESTORATION.
Can you also tell us why the FBI and Interpol did not go and seize the Ferrari #0384 hulk from Belgium for K. Kleve?

And while you are at it, please tell us why the Belgium authorities never moved the carcass from the property of L’Exception Automobile.

Tell us why, if the vehicle was stolen as you say, and listed as such, then why did YOU not go over and just retrieve it?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

A thief is a thief and Guy Anderson is a thief. Spin it any way you want but that truth will not go away.

 

If I may answer before Joe does... Without CG the car would have been shopped to the highest bidder by an agent appointed to the HOA (if that had of existed). However at the time the HOA was invented by CG he was shopping the car to Bonhams. Baring in mind he had a tenuous link to ownership at that time (listed as financier), it didnt stop him offering the car as an exclusive entry for Bonhams Goodwood in September 2013. We all know that the sale never happened and it got bumped to Goodwood in July 2014. The $64k question is what inducements did Bonhams give CG to make the entry AND what legality that may have. Perhaps Bonhams gave CG a gift and CG just chose that as the best place to sell the car and somehow had the right to force the HOA to accept the venue as the proposed sale. Never mind that RM or Gooding in Monterey or a Duncan Hamilton/ Lukas Huni/ Kidston and on and on would likely have created a better chance of landing a bigger sales price. Meanwhile back on planet earth, one could easily consider the whole process of selecting the sale venue was corrupt from the start and the ball started rolling ........

Also, go Readplays, great reply................

 

I think CG is the only one who pushed Bonhams to think CG had authority, but Bonhams was warned by my Ohio and UK attorneys that the matter was in litigation.

IF CG's attorney represented that CG was the owner with authority to sell the Ohio Parts then I think such a representation would be assisting in a fraud or illegal act.

At best, CG's attorney should say CG has filed a claim in an Ohio court as to being an owner, and that the CG ownership claim is pending in that Ohio court.

The Ohio Bar has strict rules about representations during litigation.

Joe

*

 

I take it that your opinion is that there could be serious implications for CG's attorney if he made such representations to Bonhams?

Jeff

 

Timmmmy. I know it summer with you but I think you should keep out of the sun and read the Court documents posted on the “other site” rather than come up with some very speculative accusations based on the biased information that is being posted by both sides of this argument.

First read Swaters defense against the Wexner claim for rescission. She reminds us that despite the various purported and disputed transfers between Ford/Lawson/Gardner she is the owner of 0384AM until proven otherwise. She also states that it was Bonhams (although we know that Ford and Gardner were both trying to get a deal with Swaters) who on 22nd November 2012, first approached her with the possibility of a settlement. We know that this approach lead to a meeting in the following January and that all parties willingly signed and agreed to the HOA in March. OJ may complain, shout conspiracy and allude to "game changing new evidence" but the reality is that the HOA is still standing and the Ohio claims are not. What I never understood was, if OJ had a valid claim before the Bonhams sale then why did he not simply file a writ in London to stop it ? After all this was exactly what Zanotti did and look what the effect was !

Otherwise and in reply to the posts on Gardners authority, we have to accept there were five parties to the HOA. Swaters, Ford, Lawson, Gardner and Bonhams. The first four, including for what ever reason Gardner, all and willingly agreed to consign the car for sale by Bonhams, extinguish all claims and distribute the proceeds. In the event two of the parties, after much prevarication, refused to sign the consignment to auction but it cannot be a surprise that the remaining two, Swaters and Gardner continued on their own and in reliance of the HOA. All of this “Gardners a financier, bill payer, fraud and not an owner” chaff that is being thrown up is my opinion irrelevant to the effect of the HOA that, I repeat, ALL PARTIES WILLINGLY SIGNED.

Where all this “he said this I said that” stuff will be resolved is in the High Court of London and in the Arbitration Court of Florida and not in this thread. Like many before me, I am getting bored with the repetitive "IMHO for whatever reason or argument over what interest I did or did not have in the settlement" stuff and will focus on what is actually coming out of the Courts. Maybe OJ could tell us what happened in the Ohio Court hearing on the 2nd and has he accepted service of the Bonhams writ in London yet.


Kim
aka freezing of London

 

Joe, on the subject of shipping documentation, I was thinking about the parts you shipped in accordance with the terms of the HOA and the court order.

What documentation was needed, what was the declared value of the parts shipped to London, did you have to provide an invoice for Custom purposes and finally did they charge a duty ?

Kim

 

We entrusted the parts and docs to a shpping company in Cincinnati (its all on video) hired by Bonhams who did all the rest. I suggested a multi-million dollar value but I think the goods were on some sort of permit where there was no duty due. Bonhams handled all that - I do not know how.

Also, I see you ask why did not I file an injunction to stop the sale. Answer is because it is not necessary since Bonhams already knew they lacked authority and could not convey title.

If you were truly unbiased, you would be asking why did not Bonhams sue to enforce the HOA with its Sept 2013 auction in London on April 20 2013 after Swaters refused to sign the Haas proposed order, or on May 20, 2013 when I refused to sign the Jones proposed order. Instead, Bonhams did nothing, and Swaters deliberately opted to sue in the wrong forum despite being warned it was the WRONG forum.

Answer that and you will have a clue as to what the explosive, game-changing evidence is.

Joe


*

 

I am sorry Joe but I am not a lawyer. You need to explain the significance of Bonhams not suing and you and Swaters not agreeing to your proposed orders. I also do not understand at what point in time before the aborted auction in 2013 Bonhams would be required to take action given that Swaters was already in a Ohio Court (wrong forum or not) trying to get you to comply with the terms of the HOA.

You also need also to explain why when the HOA contains a clause that all disputes are to be settled in a London court that you thought that running around waiving a solicitors letter of opinion was going to stop them. Bonham, Swaters and Gardner no doubt with their own legal opinions all believed they had authority to proceed and in the absence of legal action, they did.

Finally, I sense that you are being deliberately obtuse on your "multi-million dollar value" and vagueness on "some sort of permit where no duty was due. Come clean or I am sure someone else will !

Kim

 

I hate to break in when you two are getting along so well, but one explanation for Swaters's choice to seek judicial assistance in Ohio, to try to save the September 2013 auction, is that the people whose performance she needed -- Joe Ford and Kristi Lawson -- had already generally appeared in the Swaters v. Lawson & Ford Ohio case, such that the tools were already at hand to get the action she wanted on the shortest possible time frame. To see the difference, look at how long it's been since Bonhams filed its action in London, and as far as I can tell neither Joe Ford or Kristi Lawson has submitted to the jurisdiction of that court. Three months and counting, isn't it?

 

Personally I dont know if things are anywhere near as simple as that............. Again, you mention that all parties willingly signed the HOA, how can that possibly be accurate when surely Chris Gardner owns all of the rights to the Ohio portion..... Unless, unless, oh I dont know. HE BLOODY WELL DOESN'T?, thats always been the flaw in Max Vito, Faucompre, Gardner and every other flat-earther's claim. Because even if it was correct that Chris had purchased all of the Ohio contingent share (and that is the mother of all if's), then why not defer sale of #0384AM until that had been legally decided.. And if it was correct then why allow OJ or KKL as HOAer's when they owned no part of #0384AM nor had any claim to it, well we (those that arent flat earthers) already know that they do have a legal claim to ownership of at least a portion of #0384AM....... No he just declared that he "believed" in that claim.......... And needed to sell before the issue got bogged down in more legal wrangling.....

Thats my 2 cents worth.

 

Bill,

In my 2013.08.02 Reply to Swaters Motion to Enfortce the HOA, I warned Swaters that Ohio lacked jurisdiction to decide the HOA issues due to the venue selection clause, AND in that same writing I offered to waive my rights to that clause and to submit the issue to the Ohio court if ALL HOA signatories agreed. Guess who refused to waive? The first initial of the name is "B", so please spare us all of making excuses on B _ _ _ _ _ _' behalf.

"Defendant Ford consents this Ohio Court's jurisdiction as to the Heads of Agreement if and only if Defendant Lawson, signatory Gardner, and signatory Bonhams also consent." [2013.08.02 Ford reply, p.2, lines 4-6]

NO ONE ELSE CONSENTED. THE AUG. 19, 2013 DECISION FOLLOWED. WE APPEALED. THE APPEAL DECISION RENDERED MONTHS LATER on MAY 28, 2014 AGREED WITH MY POSITION, REVERSED THE AUG. 19. 2013 ORDER, AND ORDERED MY CLAIMS REINSTATED. (A few days later, the trial court erred again and failed to reinstate my claims. I predict my claims will be reinstated. We await the next appeal decision).

Joe

*

 

I usually don't reply to incoherent messages on internet message boards, but I'll break the rule just this once.

If I understand correctly, you asked Bonhams to agree to change the choice of law/choice of venue provision in the HOA from English law/London court to Ohio law/Ohio court; to consent to be named a party to the Swaters v. Lawson & Ford case; and to make a general appearance in Swaters v. Lawson & Ford case, and thereby to submit to Ohio jurisdiction. (Presumably this scenario would also require at least one of the parties to Swaters v. Lawson & Ford to amend his or her complaint to allege a cause of action/claim for relief against Bonhams, given that most courts in the USA will not render advisory opinions.)

I hope that even the laypersons following this thread will not criticize Bonhams for declining this proposal. In any event, this procedure would not have been very expeditious, as it would have required an amendment to the pleadings, an Answer from Bonhams, and a unanimous pre-amendment agreement to modify the HOA's choice of law/choice of venue provision. You state that "NO ONE ELSE CONSENTED." So it wasn't just Bonhams that didn't agree with this proposal. So why the ominous "begins with B" formulation?

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I thought you put it out there that Swaters had some dark, game-changing, blow-the-lid off motive for filing a motion in Ohio rather than London, and I was offering a non-dark, non-game-changing, the-lid-remains-in-place explanation: that seeking relief in Ohio would be quicker than filing an all-new action in London and trying to bring you and Lawson under the jurisdiction of the London court.

Also, regarding your contention that the May 2014 Court of Appeals opinion "reinstated" your claims: what is your construction of the Court of Appeals's use of the term "Final Judgment"? My construction of that term is that the adjudication on the merits of all claims to ownership asserted by the parties to the Swaters v. Lawson, Ford, & Gardner case is over. The fight over disputed issues of fact, disputed legal theories, etc., is over. The Hamilton County Circuit Court retains only post-final-judgment jurisdiction, to rule on such post-final-judgment motions as the parties care to bring to the court. Am I wrong?