375+ # 0384

The car was stolen from Kleve. FACT

The stolen car was exported to Belgium and sold to Swaters while still listed as stolen in the U.S. FACT

Kleve waited 10 years until the car was restored and sent his agent to negotiate a settlement on the U.S. Title. FACT

There was a settlement agreement in 1999 whereby Swaters paid $625,000 for the U.S. Title and theft release. Disputed.

Justice Flaux has set aside two days for a preliminary hearing on the 19th October to settle this "dispute". Ford/Lawson will have their day in Court and be given every opportunity to prove that the 1999 Settlement agreement was a forgery. FACT

If the Court finds the 1999 settlement agreement is false then Ford/Lawson are vindicated. Alternatively, if not, then it is a FACT that Swaters responded to Kleves approach, settled the claim and has Title in the U.S. and all that is left is the twelve to sixteen day main trial in April 2016 to sort out the mess and the FChat debate on the integrity of the parties involved

 

Does anybody here have an idea how much Mr. Swaters paid for the original engine from Mr. Leydorf in 2003/2004?

 

This thread has seen a lot of eccentric opinions about the power of the state to dispose of private property over the objections of its owner. Joe Ford frequently writes that no effective transfer of property can ever occur without the consent of the owner. Each time he writes this nonsense, the mind races with counter-examples. Eminent domain proceedings. Taxes. Civil and criminal fines. Divorce decrees. Civil damage awards. Orders of specific performance. Orders of rescission. Levy and execution on the property of a judgment debtor. Nuisance abatement. Zoning laws. Cease and desist orders. Red-tagging derelict buildings. Real estate foreclosure sales. Repossession of loan security. This is a partial list.

What does this have to do with #0384? The connection is, that when Kristi Lawson filed a cross-claim in the Swaters v. Lawson case on March 18, 2010, and Joe Ford did likewise on March 25, and the Swaterses answered Lawson-Ford on March 29, all three parties had granted to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas the power to adjudicate their substantive claims to ownership of #0384: the power to award sole ownership to one side, and to extinguish the claims of the other side.

What is the current status of these competing, substantive claims to ownership? In a document we have been calling the HoA, effective date of March 12, 2013, Florence Swaters (“the BC”) and Lawson-Ford (together with the non-party Gardner, “the OC”) agreed to waive and release their substantive claims to ownership. They essentially agreed to trade in their substantive claims to ownership, and to put in their place an all-new set of rights and duties, as provided in the HoA. At this point all the debate about stolen property, or about the alleged infirmity of a transfer of ownership in the absence of the owner’s consent, became irrelevant.

In a Judgment Entry dated August 19, 2013, Judge Nadel of the Hamilton County Court ruled that “The Court ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that the March 12, 2013 Heads of Agreement is binding upon the parties to this action and is enforceable.” Although Ford and Lawson appealed from another part of this Judgment — and won — they did not challenge this ruling. Therefore it is now the final judgment of the Ohio courts, that both sides’ substantive claims to ownership are extinguished, and that their substantive claims have been replaced with the rights and duties provided in the HoA.

One of the provisions of the HoA is that the extinction of the parties’ substantive claims to ownership is provisional. Specifically, the HoA essentially provides that the case of Swaters v. Lawson shall not be dismissed, and that the parties’ substantive claims shall remain at issue, until Bonhams — also a party to the HoA — has sold The Car at auction in September 2013, and until there has been a “distribution” of the proceeds of the auction sale.

The provisional nature of the parties’ releases of their substantive claims, combined with the parties’ conduct in the period from March to September 2013, gave rise to a question of construction. That question is, what did the parties intend to happen to their substantive claims to ownership, if the parties’ conduct made it factually impossible for Bonhams to perform the September 2013 auction? Do we construe the HoA to provide that Bonhams retained the authority to auction The Car at a later date? Or did the parties intend that all the rights and duties set forth in the HoA should cease to exist in September 2013, with the parties restored to active litigation of their substantive claims to ownership? Three of the five parties to the HoA — Swaters, Gardner, and Bonhams — have consistently contended that the correct construction of the HoA is that, if one or more party made a September 2013 auction factually impossible, then the HoA would continue in effect, with the auction merely to be postponed. Ford and Lawson have switched back and forth on what should be the correct construction, their position flipping back and forth according to the convenience of the moment. (Their current contention is that the HoA is no longer effective. But in light of the way things have been going in London, they are likely to swing back to a loving endorsement of the HoA.)

Shortly after the June 2014 auction sale, Joe Ford also began to hint in these pages that he had discovered a ground to attack the basic viability of the HoA; “game-changing” evidence was how he put it. As it turns out, this challenge principally relies on two emails from Swaters to Bonhams, and one from Bonhams to Swaters, in the period immediately before and after the formation of the HoA. In her two emails, Swaters wrote that the September 2013 auction sale should be postponed if to do so would increase the proceeds of sale. In the Bonhams email, the unidentified author agreed. If these three emails — and whatever other supporting evidence Ford and Lawson are able to submit — were sufficient to negate the formation of the HoA, this would raise the distinct possibility that Judge Nadel’s Judgment that the HoA “is binding upon the parties . . . and is enforceable,” would be vacated, and that the litigation of the parties’ substantive claims to ownership would pick up where they had left off in March 2013.

The claims of Ford and Lawson, that the formation of the HoA should be negated, and/or that it had ceased to be effective and controlling in the post-September 2013 era, gave rise to the questions, where should these claims be litigated, and what law should determine the dispute? The answer is set forth in the HoA. In the HoA, the parties — including Bonhams — agreed that the HoA “shall be governed by English law.” They also agreed that “any dispute in relation to it [the HoA] will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London.”

It was in reliance on this second provision — the forum selection clause — that Ford and Lawson successfully appealed Judge Nadel’s August 2013 order to dismiss Swaters v. Lawson, as well as Judge Nadel’s Final Judgment Entry of June 9, 2014. In its March 11, 2015 opinion in the second Ford-Lawson appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals made the following rulings:

"{¶16} . . . ecause the parties have, for all practical purposes, prevented the trial court from taking any further action in this matter until the validity of the Heads of Agreement is resolved by the London court, we order the trial court to stay all proceedings once reinstated. With the exception of vacating its contempt order and staying the proceedings, the trial court is to take no further action in this matter. The litigation is to remain stayed until such time as the London court determines that the Heads of Agreement is not a valid and enforceable document, or until such time as the London court enforces the Heads of Agreement and directs the parties to dismiss by agreement the action in Hamilton County. A certified entry from the London court is necessary to trigger further action in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas."

In this paragraph it appears that one scenario anticipated by the Ohio Court of Appeals was that Ford and Lawson would successfully limit the jurisdiction of the London High Court to an initial, bifurcated trial of the Ford-Lawson contentions that the HoA had ceased to be effective in September 2013, and/or that the three Swaters-Bonham emails mean that the HoA was never effective. It is apparent that the Ohio Court of Appeals anticipated that, if Ford and Lawson did win a London judgment that the HoA either had ceased to be effective, or that it had never been effective, then the parties’ substantive claims to ownership would be revived, and that the litigation of these claims would resume in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

According to Enigma Kim’s reports of the March 19 and June 5 proceedings before Justice Flaux, this scenario is not in the cards. Rather, on October 19, Justice Flaux will be trying the parties’ substantive claims to ownership in his court.

How did this happen? According to Enigma Kim’s report of the June 5 proceedings, Ford and Lawson made it happen. In July 2014, Bonhams filed a lawsuit in London naming Lawson, Ford, Gardner, and Swaters. I take it that the relief requested is essentially an order telling Bonhams what to do with the $18 million proceeds of sale in its possession. Because Bonhams had proceeded with the June 2014 auction based on the green light given to it by Swaters, whom Bonhams personally recognized to hold legal title to The Car, this request appears to have put in issue the parties’ substantive claims to ownership.

Ford and Lawson generally appeared in the Bonhams action and filed an Answer. Under English law this filing started a 14-day clock running on the filing of an application to limit the London court’s jurisdiction over Ford-Lawson. If Ford-Lawson had wanted to reserve sole jurisdiction over the substantive ownership issue to the Ohio courts, Ford-Lawson needed a ruling that the London court’s jurisdiction would not extend to the substantive ownership issue. Rather, Ford-Lawson needed to apply to limit London’s jurisdiction solely to whether the HoA had ceased to be effective, and/or that it had never been effective. In their characteristic fashion, always to keep all options open and to change their story according to the needs of the moment, Ford-Lawson chose not to file the application, and the 14-day deadline ran out.

To make matters worse, at some point Ford and Lawson also filed an affirmative claim or cross-claim in London, seeking for their own benefit a ruling on the parties’ substantive claims to ownership. Even if their failure to file an application to limit the London court’s jurisdiction, within the 14-day deadline, had not already subjected Ford-Lawson to London jurisdiction over the substantive ownership issue, they certainly had subjected themselves to it when they filed this affirmative claim.

Furthermore, London jurisdiction might have been baked in the cake from the beginning. When Ford and Lawson agreed that their performance under the HoA, and that of the non-party Bonhams, “shall be governed by English law,” it was reasonably foreseeable that, if Ford-Lawson proceeded to make it factually impossible for Bonhams to perform an auction in September 2013, then Bonhams would file suit in London seeking relief from that result. If it is the case that English law provided that Bonhams could litigate the substantive ownership issues in London, as an incident to its requests for relief from the misconduct of Ford and Lawson, then this is a result to which Lawson and Ford had agreed when they entered into the HoA.

Now that Ford and Lawson are irrevocably subject to the jurisdiction of the London court with respect to their substantive claims to ownership, what will be the effect in the Ohio courts, if the result of the October London trial is that Swaters is the owner? Specifically, will the Ohio courts rule that this result is binding on Ford and Lawson? The doctrine of res judicata gives us the answer. Res judicata provides that, once the parties to a disputed cause of action or a disputed issue of fact have litigated their disputes to a final judgment in Court A, the result is binding on both sides and cannot be re-litigated in Court B. A party who is adverse to the judgment in Court A may avoid the doctrine with a showing that the law that was applied in Court A is so inconsistent with the law in Court B, that the result will be different in Court B if the matter is re-tried in Court B. It is difficult to conceive of a rule of law that might be applied in London, which would depart so greatly from the law in Ohio as to change the result. Of course the absence of any facts or law in support of their positions has never stopped Joe Ford and his pathetic Ohio lawyers Smith and Rinear from asserting them, or even slowed them down. But ultimately the Ohio courts will rule that Ford and Lawson are subject to res judicata with respect to the result of the London trial of ownership issues.

Ohio Certificate of Title enthusiasts may contend that, even though Ford and Lawson have affirmatively asked the London court to try their substantive claims to ownership of The Car; even though Ford-Lawson have tried these claims in London and have lost; and even though Ford-Lawson cannot escape the operation of res judicata, the State of Ohio has a public interest in the sanctity of Certificates of Title which overrides the ability of private persons to regulate the ownership of their motor vehicles through their private exercise of freedom of choice. After participating in this thread for about one year I have given up hope for these people.

Nonetheless I would point them to the paragraph from the Court of Appeals opinion that I have quoted, which states that the Ohio courts are bound to the terms to which the parties agreed in the HoA. As I wrote in an earlier post on the Ford-Lawson motion for an injunction, that they filed in Ohio on May 28, Ford-Lawson “appear to contend that the Court of Appeals has expressed some sort of overriding Ohio public policy, that the Ohio courts alone have jurisdiction to decide the substantive ownership interests.” As I also wrote in that post, and as I think I have shown in this post, that contention is mistaken. Rather, all the persons who are making substantive claims to ownership of The Car have freely agreed to release those claims in exchange for the set of rights and duties provided in the HoA. They have freely agreed to litigate all disputes arising in relation to the HoA in London, and to govern their performance by English law. They have freely agreed to step outside the provisions of the HoA and to re-open the litigation of their substantive claims to ownership in London, and to try these claims to judgment. The Ohio courts have expressed no interest in negating these free choices, in the name of an overriding public interest in the sanctity of Ohio Certificates of Title, or at all.

From today’s perspective, it says here that the most likely scenario is to be that Justice Flaux will rule in October that Swaters is the owner of The Car. The court will then give to Swaters and Bonhams — and Gardner too, if he participates through counsel — a massive award of costs, in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Possibly half a million dollars. Faced with the loss of any ownership claim to the Car, and also faced with an action to collect the award of costs — i.e., Swaters and Bonhams registering their awards in Ohio and attaching and selling every available piece of personal and real property owned by Kristi Lawson (as well as the anonymous Ford-Lawson litigation financier) — it is likely that Ford-Lawson will agree to whatever terms of settlement it takes to extricate themselves. (In fact, if Gardner prevails in his August Florida arbitration, in October Ford will not even be a player.) These terms will include a suitable stipulation as to the “entry” that the Ohio Court of Appeals has interposed as the necessary condition to reopen proceedings in the Hamilton County Court. “A certified entry from the London court is necessary to trigger further action in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.") This entry will include the negation of the fraudulent Lawson-Ford Certificate of Title currently subject to the BMV hold. At that point even the Certificate of Title zealots can rejoice. All will again be put right in Ohio Certificate of Title firmament.

 

Whewwww...I'm glad you don’t practice law. If you did, then Joey would be a perfect partner for your "Anti Trust" law firm. You two could be Ferrari collectors and confiscate anyone's Ferrari based on the "Cheesey Lineage Theory".

The Ohio Appeals Court declared that the London High Court will decide on title and ownership rights, and the ruling from London is binding in both the USA and in England. You can’t make up your own laws and imagine that a fake Ohio title holds any weight at all, other than slander on Wexner's car. Kristie Lawson and Joe Ford will have to prove their claim in the High Court of London with their fraudulent Ohio Title. Do you expect Judge Flaux is going to rule in their favor, simply because you and the rest of Joey's cheering section says so? Impossible. It's a fraud.

Accordingly, Judge Flaux fined both Kristie Lawson and Joey Frod $50,000 each last week and was deserved. Judge Flaux can clearly see who is doing the "doing". On October 19, the High Court in London will hear from Ms. Lawson and her best Buddy on the Ohio title rights. It'll be a lesson on "How to shoot themselves in the foot" (an English term).

Also in October, Judge Flaux will discover if Bonhams conveyed the only legal interest in the Ferrari to Wexner and will make a ruling on it. I guarantee you Cheesey, it won't be the "fraudulent Ford" Ohio title. Logic tells you this...evidence dictates the law. Not FerrariChat.

Kristie Kleve-Lawson has zero interest in the 375 Plus.....zip-nada-nothing. Remember? She sold Joey 100% of her interest. His "thread" of interest will be governed by the HOA terms, the one they defaulted on, caused damage to, and breached. They have actually zero interest in London, mainly because she was paid in full, falsified documents, and lied to the courts for purpose to 'coin' a title to send with the package of parts to Bonhams. Her only possible share, is the promise from Joey Frod that he would "recover" the entire car by villianizing Jacques Swaters and putting Florence in the dumpster. At the end of their Fairy Tale, the Heiress and Sir Frod will likely be share riding in the MGB and savoring watermelon.

 

Holy crap, Bill, you have managed to explain it quite understandably. That's what I check this thread for, usually in vain.

Thank you very much for that explanation. I'm sure certain people here (the OC) will say it's hogwash, but everything seems to fit quite clearly under my (admittedly limited) understanding of US law, and of this case up until now.

 

Excelente!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Go easy on cheesey. He deserves our veneration, not sarcasm and ridicule. His severe dedication to the principle, that no transfer of property without its owner’s consent can ever be cured, requires him to live in an Indian Casino. He could not possibly set foot on any other land in the North or South American continents. Clothing is a challenge; he is forbidden to wear American cotton, grown on fields cleared by African slaves, whose very humanity was stolen from them, not to mention their children, spouses, and parents. He cannot even live in a former slave state, whose infrastructure and wealth trace their origins to stolen slave labor. With an estimated 2 million corrupt public officials currently running China as an engine of theft, he can’t buy clothing or anything else that has a connection to that economy. The same restriction applies to the products of most other developing nations, for the same reason, and also because they all passed through that era of institutionalized theft called colonialism, when European powers confiscated all private property and distributed it without compensation to its true owners. The pollution of the world supply of oil, with crude that is sourced from the Frankensteinian middle eastern nation-states drawn by, and for, the British and French, and handed over by them to unelected dictators, denies him the ability to enjoy motor vehicles. Museums of art and antiquities: forget about it. All of them stocked with pieces stolen from their rightful owners. No, when you have dedicated your life to the principle that stolen property stays stolen, your life is not an easy one.

 

BRAVO!!!

L.I.G.

 

and with humour +1

Bill makes an interesting point on the potential liability to the funders of the legal costs who have a contingent interest in the proceeds of a successful claim. My understanding is that you can make an application to the court for a declaration of such funders and their interest. Apart from being interesting, this also very relevant to the claimants and their assessment of the economic wisdom of persuing Ford and Lawson for costs.

Whoever was willing to fund the last desperate application and injunction must have deep pockets !

 

OMG! It's you Joey.... I thought maybe you fell off the edge of the Earth.

Your response to my post smells destitute of pecuniary resourses, a "gimmick", an elementary means of self defense. You're hiding behind Chris. Of course you "think" you agree with Onebugatti's primitive post, written while under the influence of Joe Ford Kool-Aide, the same poison that many on this board have swallowed. His intoxication was caused by your concealment of facts, distortion of truths, the out right lies and fraud, misrepresentations, and your faux legal ramblings that anyone here-including Cheesey, Big Tex, the forgotten Kiwi, Jeff K. and the rest of your cheering section would assume the same opinion. Some of them have sobered up and left the grandstands. As did Chris.

Your deliberate campaign of terror on Jacques Swaters with the hoax of the aggrieved, the poverty stricken "Heiress" and the patriotic "Rocket Scientist", and your deliberate and calculated untruths have been a malignancy on this board, and on the entire Ferrari and classic car community.

It might have smelled at the time to CG as it did to many, but since all the questions have been answered, the concealed facts exposed, plus the Lawson crimes on the fraudulent title are known, has enlightened the majority, including Judge Flaux.

Good Luck getting out of that one as I seriously doubt you will in the London High Court. It's so apparent you are an unscrupulous sleazeball and what you have done is barbaric. Your role in all of this is a fair warning on what happens when any of us deal with someone with literally nothing to lose.

 

Joe, the other site are claiming that you have dropped your Ohio lawsuit against Swaters and Gardner and that following a review by your funders, you have capitulated on the title claim on the basis that there is “no creditable evidence to refute the 1999 Settlement Agreement”.

If this is the true, then where does it leave your argument over the HOA ?

Otherwise, it is always worth re-reading earlier posts on this saga. Your post 2228 last October on my “pontificating” made me smile and I trust Lawsons “financier” appreciates that in accordance with the cost provisions of Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, “sharing” works both ways

Kim

 

There are inevitably many sides to every story and actions that takes place with 0384.

If TRUE (as reported on the other website) that as of June 28th, 2015 there is no longer a valid title claim against 0384AM -- further questions come to mind:

- Gardner / HOA: What is the status of the post-1999 Ohio title possessed by Gardner that he (supposedly) provided to Bonham's as party to the signed HOA agreement?

- Gardner/Ford upcoming Florida arbitration: Does the non-contesting of the 1999 Swaters/Kleve acquisition agreement for 0384AM affect that proceeding as well given neither party potentially has a valid Ohio title or claim?

- Swaters/Kleve 1999 acquisition settlement: If it WAS valid (big question still to be answered) -- is the engine, firewall plate, wheels and other misc parts (supposedly) included with that agreement at that time as well per Swaters legal actions later to try and collect them?

- If the engine/parts provided via Lawson are NOT part of the Swaters/Kleve 1999 acquisition settlement -- what is the current legal status of them in relation to the signed HOA? (in conjunction with Lawson / Ford and Gardner)

Inquiring minds are curious to learn more...

 

I think it is not true, that Lawson-Ford have dropped their substantive claims to ownership. In May, Enigma Kim asked me if I had a guess what the Lawson v. Swaters case is about. In Post 3300 (http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143963244-post3300.html), I answered:

The context of Enigma Kim’s question and my reply was something that I had reported on in Post 3297 (http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143963003-post3297.html), that Judge Beth Myers had calendared a hearing on June 29, requiring plaintiffs Lawson and Ford to appear and show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants Swaters and Gardner. If you check the Clerk of Court’s web page on the Lawson v. Swaters case today (http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&casenumber=A%201404305), you will see that Ford and Lawson either did dismiss the case, or allowed Judge Myers to dismiss it, effective today, June 29.

I don’t know if this transaction is the only ground for The Other Site’s representation, that Lawson and Ford have abandoned their claims to ownership. That is, The Other Site may have other sources of information to support its statement, “This week, Ford/Lawson conceded to having NO ownership in the 'Car' known as 0384AM. . . .” But the dismissal of Lawson-Ford v. Swaters-Gardner does not necessarily indicate an abandonment of Lawson and Ford’s substantive claims to ownership of The Car. My read of their decision to let the case be dismissed is that they recognize (a) that they can’t make any use of the case – or even attempt to serve Swaters and Gardner – without violating Justice Flaux injunction, and (b) the HoA is their new bff, With the most likely result of the October London trial of the parties’ substantive claims to ownership being a finding for Swaters, the continuing vitality of the HoA now represents Lawson and Ford’s only hope for a payday out of this.

 

An interesting question that was touched on at the hearing on the 5th June.

All parties appeared to accept that the parts that remained in Kleves possession were not part of the 1999 Settlement but were included in the Auction by virtue of the terms of the HOA. Accordingly, these parts do not form part of the title claim and remain in the ownership of the Ohio Contingent. Who owns and what percentage will be determined firstly, between Gardner and Ford by the arbitration proceedings and secondly, by Lawson claim for 10% (or 30% if Judge Nadels ruling is accepted).

The interesting complication is that these parts have been sold by Bonhams to Wexner with the consequence that even if Swaters has title to the car the OC will have an interest in the sale by virtue of the parts.

K

 

How true must the words of the Old Man's lawyer sound now...

"Any compromise is better than a successful lawsuit"

 

Your Fact # 1: Car was stolen from Kleve

Answer: This is NOT a fact.

The item alleged to be stolen was a rotten chassis ( Hulk) . The incident was unsubstantiated and was NOT listed as stolen in 1989; there was no proof of ownership.




Your Fact #2: The stolen car was exported to Belgium and sold to Swater’s while listed
as stolen in the USA.



Answer: This is NOT a fact.

Stolen cars can NOT be exported or imported when stolen. U.S. Customs and Belgium Customs cleared the Hulk under the number # 0384 and that VIN was NOT listed stolen.

Worldwide Exchange/Guy Anderson (exporter of record) sent #0384 to L’Exception Automobile, the importer of record. The car was sent for restoration purposes and cleared Belgium customs as 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 on 3/14/1989.

Francorchamp, Lanksweert or Swaters were NOT involved with #0384 during this time frame. It wasn’t until a full year later before those names were mentioned.





Your fact #3: Kleve waited 10 years until the car was restored and sent his agent to
Negotiate a settlement on the U.S. Title.



Answer: This is NOT a fact.

Kleve was contacted by a bounty hunter in 1997 who proposed to Kleve he could bring back the restored Ferrari 375 Plus to Ohio if he would pay him for the service.

Kleve secured a fraudulent title, listed the bounty hunter as a lien holder( 1997), then used the fraudulent title to secure the ‘1ST ever stolen car report’ on #0384 in 1997. The bounty hunter received a POA from Kleve to seize the Ferrari in Europe in 1997.

Note: this could not be accomplished since the identity of the Ferrari had been “illegally” converted to #0394 rendering any and all seizure/recovery impossible.



Your Statement: There was a settlement agreement in 1999 whereby Swaters paid 625,000 for the U.S. Title and theft release. Disputed.



Question: Who was paid on the settlement agreement?
Did Kleve receive any money that can be proved? Did Kleve get cheated?
How would a fraudulent bill of sale and fraudulent title documents constitute a sale?

Since Kleve issued a POA to seize the Ferrari, and the bounty hunter used that same POA to sell a fraudulent title, how is ANY of this legal?

Now how does Swaters now claim ownership of #0384 since they had #0394 until the car was to be sold.


If I understand this whole affair correctly;

The paperwork to be issued in UK for the sale of the Ferrari was said to be a recently issued V-5 registration issued in the UK.

Why is that? Where is the Belgium document? Have you seen a Carte Gris for #0384?
If there is one, then what is the date listed when the Carte Gris (Grey Card) was acquired……. since we know the car was illegally numbered as # 0394 for many many years.

Or, was this originally to be a Bill of Sale transaction prior to all of the problems?

What protections would ANY buyer have against these many claims?

How can anyone… MAKE A BUYER ….. NO!…. FORCE A BUYER…… to purchase such a bag of worms.
And, why would ANY buyer want to be involved with this SNAFU.

Correct me if I am wrong, please.

The buyer of the Ferrari wants the sale rescinded since this whole mess was not remedied and not ready for prime time prior to the sale 6/27/2014.The chain of ownership is not complete and accounted for.

The buyer purchased the Ferrari in “GOOD FAITH” based on what was said and written about the car. Wasn’t the information stated produced by erroneous information?

 

I think the situational indicator you are looking for is FUBAR rather than SNAFU.
Please proceed.

H

 

Please post evidence to support your claim as I think it is cobblers

Joe never could and it is a major question on the integrity of the buyers

 

Dear Kim,

The information that you have asked for relating to the Ferrari 375 Plus Vin number #0384 to #0394 is available ‘ALL OVER’ the internet for you and all to see.

I have previously posted information that certifies the 1954 Ferrari 375 plus #0384 was imported LEGALLY into Belgium on 3/14/1989 and the Importer of record is and was L”Exceptional Automobile.

NOTE: Not Lanksweert, not Swaters, and not Francorchamp.

In March of 1990 (exactly 1 year after importation) the same legally imported #0384 was ‘Illegally altered ‘to chassis # 0394 and that may end up being considered a criminal act.

Furthermore, The Ferrari was permanently released (2/1990) to L’Exceptional Automobile by The Royal Police of Belgium (the highest authority for these matters).

The permanent release of the Ferrari 375+ #0384 was issued to L’Exceptional Automobile and no one else, L’Exceptional Automobile used copies of our acquittals from the 1989 Atlanta Trial to ascertain the permanent release.

Those acquittals certified the Ferrari 375+ was a “Good Faith” purchase under abandonment laws with no evidence of ownership anywhere in USA.

Oddly enough; the Ferrari 375 Plus had its identity changed to #0394 (after the 2/1990 release) by someone in the Francorchamp organization and the paperwork for #0384 was abolished in a series of transactions that permanently concealed the original identity of #0384.


This information can be found by Googling Ferrari 375 plus #0384 in Anamera, then in Barchetta, then google Notzie list, and also can be found in Cavalino with the picture of the car in a Belgium show and #0394 as the chassis number.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Google, Anamera, Barchetta ??

This is hardly creditable evidence but I am surprised someone has recently expanded the entry on Barchetta with detailed (but as usual inaccurate) information on the dispute

Please post your "paperwork" from Francorchamps or any document or photograph of the car that the renumbered

 

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your comments.

I see from your “Hardly Creditable Evidence” comment that you may be a non-believer. OK!

The items listed prior to this post are evidence enough to prove to any court worldwide of an Illegal VIN change.

I get the feeling that you may not agree with this proof, so please tell me where VIN #0384 was hiding from 1990 to 2002 and beyond.

Are you at liberty to tell me why #0384 NEVER showed up at Jacques Swaters party in 2002? And why did VIN #0394 take its place?

Fact: Jacques Swaters listed a Red/blue interior 375 plus VIN #0394 on display at his party in 2002 and he also stated that VIN #0394 was from his private collection.

Now you ask for a “ paperwork” from Francorchamp, admitting that they illegally converted The 1954 Ferrari 375+ #0384 VIN number to a BOGUS # 0394 VIN number.

I don’t think they would issue such a letter of confession, but I guess you can ask for it.



In 1998 Jacques Swaters sold Francorchamp to a British concern named Maranello Concessionaires Ltd long after chassis number #0384 vanished and was illegally converted to #0394.

Perhaps you should ask for the paperwork showing VIN #0394 from them? They are an English company so contacting them will be easy for you and they can confirm that #0394 was at the 2002 party for Jacques Swaters. They probably have pictures as well.

IM sure those chaps would remember back to 2002.

While you are at it, please inquire how the Ferrari 375+ transferred from Francorchamp to Lanksweert then to Swaters then ultimately to Florence Swaters and could you please post that chain of ownership? Not verbal please, but the paper legend of #0384.

Please post how Francorchamp initially became involved with #0384 and also #0394 as it were.

Please fill in the blanks since I am very interested to hear what you discover.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If this is a "Fact" then post some creditable proof other than some Google reference to a number that has been incorrectly attributed to this car before.

Where are the pictures of the VIN or documents originating from Swaters ?

In September 1999 Swaters purchased the American title and theft release. What possible reason would he have to conceal his car as 0394AM at his party two years later ?

 

There is/was a Swatters website that gave their version of the story. On that website they discussed why they thought 0394 was the correct number for a period of time. Claimed that the chassis stamp was not fully legible and how they had Sabena doing testing on the reading of the stamping number.

So, yes Swatters did for a period of time claim the car to be 0394AM.

Jeff

 

Thanks Jeff. I cannot find this story on the Swaters or any other website but happy to accept what you say.

What does not add up for me is that every document I have seen, including the original invoice from the Belgium dealer, carries the number 0384AM. Given that only 8 cars were built, I find it hard to believe that Swaters, having openly purchased a documented car, would then try to hide it using a number that anyone with a little research knew was allocated to an engine.