375+ # 0384

Wait a minute Bill.

Are you saying BC could have standing in Ohio regarding HOA performance.

Many here accuse Joe of the same thing.

Joe is saying he gave everyone a chance at the venue. They denied. Then later showed up for relief in the denied venue. Ignoring the HOA.

What standing would you use showing up in Ohio court (for Swaters) with the signed HOA?

 

Joe

Kim is needy. Can you please explain your entire strategy. He needs it.

That includes being obtuse. Don't be so slow to tell the interwebs your next move.

 

I'm not saying Swaters was legally correct to apply to the Ohio court. What happened is that Joe Ford wrote, "Why did not Bonhams sue to enforce the HOA . . . in London? . . . 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." I chimed in to offer an explanation that does not give me a clue as to what the explosive, game-changing evidence is. My explanation is that Swaters wanted quick results, she did not want to go to London and start an all-new litigation and try to get Ford and Lawson before the London court.

I would also point out that Judge Nadel agreed that Swaters's application was lawful, because he granted it, and that Judge Nadel is likely to know more about Ohio trial court law than Joe Ford and all his lawyers put together. He surely knows more than I do.

I'm afraid I don't know what all Joe Ford has offered to his adversaries and allies in the post-HoA era. If he offered to waive his right, that all disputes arising under the HoA shall be heard in London, if Swaters, Gardner, Bonhams, and Lawson would do likewise, it is unlikely that he believed that he would get the unanimity required. If he did not believe that his offer would be unanimously accepted, then he must have had another motive for making the offer.

 

Sorry, I forgot that Joe's motivation to post is purely entertainment

It's the questions he chooses not to answer that provide the clues

 

If that's the 'truth', then perhaps you should post the evidence and prove it.

Otherwise, it's a personal attack against another member of the forum.

So, put up or get banned.

You have 24 hours.

Mike

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, Mike, but I'm unaware of a forum member who either claims to be Guy Anderson or lists their name as Guy Anderson.

 

User SEESPOTRUN has PMed me, and established that he is Guy Anderson.

He has also complained that he is unjustly being accused of being a thief.

Unless he has been convicted of theft, or incontrovertible evidence exists, his point is well-taken.

So, Jeff Kennedy needs to either prove the allegation, or suffer the consequences.

Mike

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

So, here is my follow-up (note, I am not doing citing of references of posts and documents in this thread, nor checking specific notes):

1. 0384was stolen in Ohio.

2. 0384 came to be in the possession of Guy Anderson in Atlanta.

3. Guy Anderson participated/arranged the shipment of 0384 to Belgium.

4. Guy Anderson was tried in a court in Georgia.

5. The trial ended in a hung jury. That is not an acquittal or any finding of innocence.

6. The prosecutor declined to re-try the case. Again, that does not make for acquittal or a finding of innocence.

7. I have been told that a key point in Mr. Anderson's defense during the trial was that he acted solely as a "broker" and not in any roles as an "owner".

8. Despite #7 OJ has mentioned in this thread that Mr. Anderson has claimed to have a Georgia title for the car.

I will commend SEESPOTRUN for finally deciding to expose himself by his real name.

I though, in my personal opinion, find that the above statements do lead to a logical conclusion.

Jeff

 

Mike,

In November of 1989 and while under oath, Anderson admits to taking the files that were the property of the shipping company that handled the export of the stolen Ferrari 0384AM. Anderson also admits that the FBI thought Anderson was dealing in stolen cars.

So, IMHO at least, he is a thief of documents. Below is the evidence - Anderson testimony from Nov. 1989.

And then Anderson lied to the FBI so that the FBI would not know the whereabouts of the stolen Ferrari 0384AM.

So, IMHO, it is safe to say Anderson was BOTH a thief and a liar.

Karl Kleve did not trust Anderson. Karl actually recorded Anderson's conversations in 1999. We found many of those cassette tapes and had them transcribed.

Maybe if Anderson has claimed to you that he is not a thief and not a liar, then I think Anderson should be banned.

I spoke to Anderson a few months ago, and he told me some seemingly significant things about who and how much Bonhams paid to get the auction listing, but would not put them in writing. He also told me about the fear one person had due to his relative being in law enforcement, a relative with the a certain, very unique license plate.

SeeSpotRun, now that you have admitted your identity as Guy Anderson, would you back up your verbal statements to me for the benefit of this board?

If you have 1989ish photos, would you post some of the photos of 0384AM as it sat on Kleve's property, or as it sat on a trailer in Atlanta, or as it sat at the storage facility on Lawrenceville Highway after being moved from Global Motorsports. Maybe you could post the Georgia registration(s) that you obtained for 0384AM.

Joe

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

 

Jeff,

Logical conclusion does not mean guilty. (Please see "Innocent until proven guilty)

Please refrain from calling Mr. Anderson (SEESPOTRUN) names on this forum.

In consequence, you will receive an infraction as a warning. Future occurrences may result in a ban from the board .

Mike

 

As I read the testimony, he took the files he was given, and didn't copy or return them.

If it was 'theft' why wasn't he charged with theft?

Who's to say the file shouldn't stay with the car?

If the files were the 'property' of the shipping company, why didn't they file charges? If charges were filed, specifically for the theft of the file, why wasn't he prosecuted? If he was prosecuted specifically for taking the file, was he convicted?

My decision stands.

 

I do not know. Perhaps the owner of the file declined to prosecute because his employee/witness had been intimidated by Anderson, a charge that Anderson WAS convicted of on February 26, 1990 because he wanted to avoid another trial that had already been scheduled. See Ferrari Chat p.94 post 1863, or p.125, post 2499.

That question is easy - the OWNER of the file says where the file goes. Note, this file had all kinds of other documentation and notes from the very first contact with Anderson, which for some reason Anderson said he needed to "borrow" it to make a copy and instead kept it and never returned it.

If "if" were a skiff we could go boating. Such questions are known as rhetoric.

The KEY RELEVANT question you should ask is whose property was the file and did the person take the property of another without permission. If both answers are "yes" then it is safe to say a theft occurred.

While it is true that specific charges for theft of the file were not made, that does not reverse Anderson's admission that he took property (the file) belonging to someone else (the shipping company) without their permission. In fact, Anderson gained access to the file with a lie by stating he only wanted to "copy" the file. When the FBI inquired into the matter, Anderson intimidated the witness. Anderson repeatedly refused to return the file when asked by the shipper.

FWIW, I join you in your attempt to get all members to avoid personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations, taking care of which words they use to insure fairness and accuracy. In pursuit of such high standards, maybe we ought to ban anonymous memberships, which only seems to invite abuse.

Your thoughts?

Joe

*

 

In my opinion, and only in my opinion, if someone 'borrows' something, with someone else's permission, and doesn't return it, and a formal complaint isn't filed, then, formally, the person who originally loaned the property has essentially extended that permission indefinitely.

If a complaint is filed, then the person loaning the property is clearly accusing the borrower of theft.

Is the borrower a thief? Euphemistically, of course. Technically? I think it's a grey area.

A friend of mine borrowed my hand-held drill six months ago. I asked him about it last month, and he said he was sure he returned it, and that he didn't have it any more. Is he a thief? Maybe. Would I call him a thief? No.

However he 'gained access' to the file, it was given to him, and in spite of legal action including a case in court, it wasn't returned, and no charges were filed.

My thought is there are many viable, logical reasons people might join Forums anonymously: celebrity, infamy, privacy concerns, etc.

The rules do not require members to divulge any personal or private information about themselves. And, even if they did, there's no logical, reasonable, or certain way for each provided detail (Name, Location, Age, etc.) to be verified.

If, for instance, Warren Buffett frequented the board, would you insist that he do so under his real name?

Of course not.

My question, regarding this entire situation is "Why is this still a legal issue, considering the Statute of Limitations?"

Mike

 

I wonder if Guy Anderson=SEESPOTRUN knows of this.

Streisand Effect refers to the unintended consequence of further publicizing information by trying to have it censored. Instead of successfully removing the information from the public, it becomes even more widely available than before as a backlash against the censorship attempt.

Probably will keep him safe for googles like this forever.

375+ # 0384 - FerrariChat.com
www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru.../114840-375-0384-a.html
Jul 26, 2006 - 20 posts - ‎7 authors
The broker was Guy Anderson in Atlanta who sold the hulk to Europe. He was tried and got off - not acquitted, not found guilty, hung jury and ...
Page 130 - FerrariChat.com 7 posts Dec 6, 2014
Page 127 - FerrariChat.com 19 posts Nov 26, 2014
Page 126 - FerrariChat.com 20 posts Nov 18, 2014
Page 93 - FerrariChat.com 20 posts Aug 21, 2014
More results from www.ferrarichat.com


The Guy Anderson name is now free to use in this conversation. About a stolen Ferrari he was accused of taking part in.

 

This makes me think about Guy Anderson's record.

Are there any other legal issues involving theft in his past?

 

As a reminder:

1. General Posting Rules:

1.1 No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another user.

Looking up another user's past legal issues could easily be regarded as harassment.

Particularly when you're doing so only to try and substantiate something someone else has already been warned about.

5. Corrective Actions for breaking any of the above:

Ferrarichat.com can ban users without warning, explanation, or appeal, at the sole discretion of the website's operator and moderation team.

FerrariChat.com does consider that some users may not be aware of our community rules and are otherwise good users. Our moderation team will try to warn users, but for serious violations and for users that have been warned before bans may be implemented that range from 1 day to permanent.

Just a word to the wise.

Mike

 

It's not a flame Mike.

Jeff said Guy Anderson is a thief.

Guy Anderson pmd you saying I'm not. Probably a lot of other vague legal threats to.

You asked for it to be proven. (Same thing I just asked)

So if the info is public. Don't you believe that Guy Anderson's complaint and your request for proof warrant a reply from anyone with that knowledge?

Don't go all PC on me here Mike. I'm not flaming. I didn't create this question Guy Anderson did how is it flaming. To rebut his assertion. And your request for proof?

 

Your point is taken.

And, if a user comes on with evidence of this type of activity in the past, assuming it is public information, then there isn't any reason why it couldn't be posted.

The way I initially read your post was, essentially, "Can we dig anything up on the guy?"

Perhaps I read it wrong.

It isn't flaming, or harassment, to rebut his assertion that the name-calling was misplaced and incorrect.

At the same time, and I would hope that everyone would remember, this thread is NOT about Guy Anderson... but he is a major figure in this story and drama behind this car, and is therefore part and parcel of this discussion.

I would only ask that everyone be judicious in what they say, and to bear in mind that unsubstantiated allegations will result in corrective action.

Mike

 

Joe, do the same rules apply to attorney/client documents ?

 

An excellent analogy. Technically theft but to keep this crime in perspective, we are talking about a file of shipping documents with copies filed alsewhere

 

No, I do not think a shipping company is bound by the same rules as an attorney who performs work for a client and generates a file, primarily because a shipping company is not an attorney.

In the US, each state regulates via licensing their attorneys, car dealers, realtors, dog groomers, etc. Some states then delegate additional regulatory activities to professional groups, such as the state bar association in the given state.

As usual, it pays to ask the key and relevant question when attempting to apply a rule, such as did an attorney-client relationship exist, was there an attorney-client retainer agreement, what services were provided, etc. A claim of attorney-client relationship was recently attempted with me in an attempt to avoid an arbitration clause in a contract, only to be refuted by hundreds of emails over the course of years.

Joe

*

 

You are incorrect and SUSPICIOUSLY incomplete and slanted in your reasoning. The "analogy" is NOT excelklent nor evebn close. The ENTIRE file is very important because it is all relative to shipping stolen property out of the country, and the shipper repeatedly asked for it back and never got it.

The file contained the shipping agent's notes about what she was told about the stolen Ferrari cargo, the recipient of the stolen Ferrari cargo, the dates of the contacts from Anderson, the unusual steps Anderson took in relation to this stolen Ferrari cargo, etc. The file also contained the prior drafts of bills of ladings about the stolen Ferrari cargo that had different names than the ones ultimately used. The file was more than you suggest and more than you attempt to minimize -- post the basis for your allegation that a copy of the ENTIRE file existed elsewhere. Didn't the moderator of this forum just ask people to stop making such unsubstantiated allegations like you just did.

Only a couple of pages from the file were able to be recovered from other departments within the shipping company. The US attorney who prosecuted the case established this at the 1989 trial, so post for all of us here the basis for YOUR statement that a copy of the file existed elsehwere.

I suspect Anderson took the entire file, and then never returned it despite repeated requests, because there was harmful information in it. Plus there was the intimidation of the witness.

Since I expect you do NOT have any information to back up YOUR statement, I suggest you edit it or retract it.

One final question, now that we have outed Guy Anderson, who are you? I have extended considerable courtesy to you to answer your points, and it is time for me to know with whom I am communicating.

I may even adopt a "new rule" - I will not address the posts of those who conceal their identity.

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

 

Dear Mike,

The file of the 375 Plus was given voluntarily to me from Yusen, my shipping agent. There was no thief of the file as stated by Ocean Joe. That file was used to clear #0384 into Belgium for restoration. As with all automotive exports shipped thru US Customs, the cargo was required to be supported by the Title/registration for #0384. That Title/ registration was issued in 1989 and could not be issued if the Ferrari were listed on NCIC as stolen. Note: Without a title/ registration the Ferrari could not be shipped to Belgium for restoration. The Bill of Laden notes: THESE COMMODITIES LICENSED US for ultimate destination Belgium.

I too would like to see where anyone was CONVICTED of a crime pertaining to #0384. As a matter of fact, in the summer of 1989 I was called by S.A. May (FBI) to meet at the World Famous Varsity on North Avenue in Atlanta Georgia for a special meeting.

At that meeting S.A. May said he did not believe we (defendants) did anything wrong, then asked if I would bring back the 1955 Grand Prix racer. I told S.A May that I would be happy to bring back the Ferrari #0384. I also stated that I needed the return of the 50,000 dollars to pay back the investor in Europe along with the cost of shipping and round trip airfare. S.A. May said: “I can’t do that” and at that point it became clear that a jury was to decide the case.

S.A May is/was a very good FBI agent, sure we argued about this case, but the man was absolutely professional and fair. He was doing his job and he did it perfectly. I told May that the car was NOT LISTED STOLEN and the FBI was being used as a recovery service by Kleve. (In FBI file)

The attachment proves the export/import was as #0384 and not any other number nor was this shipment masked to hide its identity since it was NOT listed as a STOLEN car as some have claimed.

While we are at it…lets address this really stupid statement about lying to the FBI. During my interview with the FBI, I explained that #0384 was NOT LISTED STOLEN and The Green Township Police department verified that information. When this was told to the FBI they did not agree with that information so I concluded the conversation by saying, “I don’t know” to the whereabouts of #0384, which was already in Belgium. None of the information discussed was under oath and at that point I exercised my right to remain silent.
Just read it …..It’s really clear to see, but when you’re in court………. it becomes a ‘Prosecutors ploy’.

Grand Dad always said: “The only way to make a white rabbit black is to paint him black” That’s the job of the prosecution!

In conclusion: It was not my intention to have Mr. Kennedy banned since I know he can not produce evidence to support his unfortunate misstatement. I would please ask that the misinformation be stricken from the record since Kennedy knows NOT what he says. However, I would appreciate an apology from Mr. Kennedy for his personal attack on me.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe, once again you have extrapolated and distorted a simple statement.

Where is the "unsubstantiated allegation" in my post ?

My point was to highlight that the "theft" of the file that is being focused on here, is in my opinion, insignificant in the context of the greater theft of Karl Kleves property. The evidence and guilty pleas unequivocally show that 0384AM was stolen and i have never thought otherwise.

I object to your suggestion that I am in anyway trying to conceal my identity or need to be "outed". Unlike you, I have absolutely no interest in this case. You already have my private email with my full name and you can read my profile to see why I have been a member of FChat for over six years

Kim