Hello Timmmy. Every statement you made is wrong. 1) The car was not listed as stolen in 1989 or beyond until 1997 when listed using fraudulent Court Ordered title. 2) Francorchamp claimed to have paid $100K for partial ownership in the Plus in 1990 not $ 4500 3) Belgium Police did NOT impound the car. Where do you get these absurd statements from? 4) Kleve did NOT have proof of ownership. 5) Karl Kleve was an escaped mental patient. If you want proof go to: http://cases.ohiocourtofclaims.gov/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/streamfile.p?Serial=050615000964885&Seq=1 Your estimates of value are wrong, your statements are wrong, and I like reading this Fantasy Post. I just wish I was a cartoonist to draw this cartoon. That would be fun.
The FBI called Interpol to report a 2,000,000.00 Dollar alleged stolen 375 Plus in Brussels Belgium. M.Kruch already informed the Belgium Police he had the Hulk in his posession. The figure of 2,000,000.00 forced the Belgium police to investigate this asset. Upon their arrival, Kruch revealed the remains to the Police and they just started laughing. While talking to the Belgium Police, Kruch asked who would pay 1000 Dollars for the junk and they exited the building laughing. The Hulk was not seized and remained with Kruch until the case in Atlanta was decided. Upon the acquittals the Hulk was permantly released to M.Kruch in Belgium.
"in conjunction"... says the FBI has NO authority outside US jurisdiction. is what I previously said... in conjunction with a court order from the local legal entity anyone can legally repo anything
show us where it is legal to steal anyone's property... there was a court ordered impoundment resulting from violations of local ordinances, there is no mention for the public to help themselves to Kleve's property... regardless of value, Kleve's property was ordered impounded, not STOLEN, Kleve did not lose ownership of his property as a result of that trial... if anything the court impound and Kleve were victims of theft... also as a result of the hearing the court opined that the property was his alone... there was no stolen property Kleve's possession, otherwise the authorities would have taken immediate possession... the court deemed 0384 ( what was left there of it ) to be Kleves... ( another court agreeing that 0384 was Kleve's property... all without a bill of sale, title, etc )
Joe, you can repeat this over and over again but you, your attorneys and Lawson have been far from consistent. I do not know how to start a poll on this thread but I would like to ask the following two questions of the followers for this thread. 1. Do you believe OJ wanted the 2013 auction to take place ? 2. Do you believe Florence Swaters was worried about the 2013 auction deadline simply because of wanting to rehabilitate her family name ?
What time frame? What context of events, in the given time frame? The dynamics changed, and I still don't know what was being done in the dimly lit backrooms. Had Bonhams told us the truth about the fact that they were willing to cut side deals with one of the consignors, then they would NEVER get my business. Had they disclosed to us the FACT that they cut a side deal with the other consignor, then they would NEVER get my business. Why don't you ask those questions? The fact that you do not ask such RELEVANT questions (in fact you never ask) shows me you keep trying to defend their wrong, indefensible actions. Would you consign your disputed ownership property to an entity if you knew that entity was cutting a side deal with one of the other disputed owners? If you agreed to only get half of your property, but in in six-months, rather than litigate for another year (or two) for ALL of your property, does that mean you agreed to get half of your property in two years? So let's ask those relevant, non-loaded questions in a poll, not just here, but maybe in a full page ad in the London Times, and then in a UK court. At some point there will be accountability. Court is for resolving genuine disputes, it is not a place for dishonestly contrived disputes - unclean hands. Joe *
I have a picture of a courtroom full of attorneys waiting for the judge to take the bench for a law and motion calendar. His Honor enters, "all rise," etc., he seats himself, and he utters these words: "Court is for resolving genuine disputes, it is not a place for dishonestly contrived disputes - unclean hands." A low rumble ensues as everyone present gathers their folders and brief bags, exchanges shocked expressions, and heads for the exit. "*Now* he tells us," says the last man out the door.
+1 That is funny. Some actual transcripts: ______________________________________ Q: Are you sexually active? A: No, I just lie there. ______________________________________ Q: What is your date of birth? A: July 15th. Q: What year? A: Every year. ______________________________________ Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. ______________________________________ Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? A: Yes. Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory? A: I forget. Q: You forget? Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten? ______________________________________ Q: How old is your son, the one living with you? A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. Q: How long has he lived with you? A: Forty-five years. ______________________________________ Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that morning? A: He said, "Where am I, Doris ?" Q: And why did that upset you? A: My name is Susan. ______________________________________ Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? A: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ______________________________________ ! Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he? ______________________________________ Q: Were you present when your picture was taken? ______________________________________ Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ______________________________________ Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. ______________________________________ Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? A: Oral. ______________________________________ And my favorite: ______________________________________ Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? A: No. Q: Did you check for blood pressure? A: No. Q: Did you check for breathing? A: No. Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? A: No. Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor? A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere. Joe *
My favorite one: Two small boys are talking to each other. "My name is Billy. What's yours?" asked the fist boy. "Jospeh" replied the second one. "My dad is an engineer. What does your dad for a living?" asks Billy. Joseph replied "My father is a lawyer." "Honest?" asks Billy. "No just the regular kind" replied Joseph.
* Note what he says on Pages 34-74. Its clear to me that the 'ball game' changed when Ford & Sons were charged with fraud on September 21, 2013, as it reflects per his F-Chat posts of that period of time. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Dear Cheezy, Lets see the documentation that lists the car stolen including the VIn number, a real description and the Kleve title from 1989. I have asked for this on many occasions and it looks like you are prepared to display that document and information. I cant wait to see this. Now while we are on the so called theft subject, please tell me how you would list your car stolen without proof of ownership ( no title) and where would you be able to list that. Certainly not in this country. Please explain how that can possibly be done. You will need to go back and re-read the part where Kleve's property was seized by the State of Ohio. The property was to be auctioned for the $36,000.00 cleanup, impound and disposal of the Kleve junk.
"Cheezy" can answer this himself, if he can be bothered arguing these points. I have one question for you, just 1. What would you say you did, stole the car?, helped steal the car?, sold a stolen car?, saved the car?, rescued the car? or if none of those options, what then was your role in all of this. A simple question, that deserves a simple answer without rhetoric nor claim, in your own words please.
So Seespotrun's claim is that Kleve never actually owned 0384AM; and that an impound order is actually a seizure order, and that stealing property that is subject to an impound order is just fine because he thought it was going to be destroyed. I haven't seen any response from Seespotrun to the question of how Kleve came into possession of 0384AM from Kimberley - he's not so neatly just avoiding answering that difficult question, so that he can continue his pretense that Kleve didn't actually own the car. To a lay person, it seems a frankly ridiculous pretense, but that's the game lawyers of a certain character are disreputed to play all the time, so there you go, what can you expect? Not actual honest answers... As for the county impounding - If my car gets impounded by the police because I've been speeding, I can't get it back for 10 days - that doesn't mean the police or state now own my car. Ownership is retained, not transferred, in an impound situation, isn't that correct? So even if the county ordered the contents of Kleve's property impounded, the contents still remained owned by Kleve. How do the impounded remains of the cars become property of the county, so that they have authority to destroy them? Failure to pay a fee or penalty? So even IF the impounded property were subsequently ordered destroyed after failure by Kleve to pay - the theft of the 0384AM parts prior to them being impounded meant that the Ferrari parts were never impounded, so they weren't seized by the county, so their ownership remained with Kleve. Whoever stole the parts stole them from Kleve, not from the county, since they were stolen prior to the impound and assumed subsequent forfeiture of the rest of the automobile remains. MBZGURL's post (how come all the opponents to Ocean Joe refuse to enter a real name or actually identify themselves? What's to hide? I expect they don't want any formal association with their posts here, as they used against Joe Ford in the transcripts posted by the anonymous MBZGURL. So only Ocean Joe has the "guts" to stand behind what he writes here, and Seespotrun and MBZGURL and the others opposing Ocean Joe prefer to hide and maintain some pretense? OK, goes to credibility of whatever you post...) - nice post, MBZGURL, I actually read the transcript. "Note what he says on Pages 34-74" - OJ's argument that the HOA actually expired after the September 2013 date specified in the agreement passed make sense - at least to a layman who may not be up on all the latest lawyer weasel-ease. The HOA specified a precise date, which the parties did not achieve. End of agreement. Further, you posted 4 attachments of transcripts to suggest "the 'ball game' changed when Ford & Sons were charged with fraud on September 21, 2013, as it reflects per his F-Chat posts of that period of time." - yet the attached transcripts have absolutely nothing to do with any charge of fraud, and don't even include any decision or judgement on the matter being discussed in the transcripts. Pretty useless to your point, isn't it? What was the purpose of attaching an unrelated transcript? Was Joe Ford subsequently charged with fraud, and if yes what was the result? Convicted or cleared? How about you declare your interest, or lack thereof, with your real name? Those of us following this car (and there are many, despite the also-anonymous seespotrun's attempt to marginalize those who don't buy his brand of lawyer weasel-eaze) are curious to know who are the persons arguing against Joe Ford, who did disclose long ago his real name and interest. Here you go, I'll show you how easy this is - my name is Gordon Choate, I'm an engineer not a lawyer, my personal interpretations of legal matters are my personal opinion only and have absolutely no standing, I have no legal interest of any sort in 0384AM, no relationship with any of the parties, am not affected in any way by the eventual outcome of any ownership or sale of 0384AM. Now you try it!
So you're saying that the car was stolen, but you didn't know it? Are you saying that because you didn't know it was stolen that you should be allowed to retain ownership? I would have expected that a genuine good faith legal purchase would mean that you don't get convicted of theft, you might not get convicted of possession of stolen property, but you don't get to keep the stolen property, it would remain the property of the rightful original owner. Isn't that how it works in most any US jurisdiction?
Further for Seespotrun - you've frequently contended that the value of the rotted frame with serial number stamping was essentially zero, it was junk, you were doing the world a favour (and seem puzzled that the world isn't rushing to thank you)... You should perhaps discuss with James Glickenhaus what the value of the original serial number on the section of frame is worth - you can read his story of 0846 right here on FerrariChat in http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread.html I don't see much support for your argument that a rotted frame tube is worthless; instead, most seem to agree that ownership of that frame tube with the genuine serial number is of immense value. This own case, with the resurrection of an 0384AM car from nothing but the rotted frame tubes, actually proves the argument against you. There are quite a few craftsmen who could rebuild a nearly identical Ferrari clone for a million or two dollars that would be indistinguishable from the current 0384AM - the additional value and worth of the present day 0384AM comes solely from that original frame tube with the serial number plate.
Kimberly did NOT sell Kleve a Ferrari as I stated earlier in this forum. The bill of sale that you are referring to is a forged document with the wrong address, the wrong year, the wrong description, the wrong paper, the wrong date and the wrong amount. NOTE: The address used on the Fake BOS does not exist. Do you believe that Kimberly (who was worth over 50 million) flew to Ohio and handed that forged BOS document to Kleve? I Think Not! Look at the bill of sale and you will know that a paper magnate who monograms his paper plates and all race documents with Scuderia Kimberly in red, would NEVER make such a BS bill of sale. It is obvious that the forged B.O.S. document was not folded and sent thru the US Postal Service.( as seen on real official title documents) And, If you have been following this #0384 forum then you would also know that Kimberly sold #0384 to Howard Hively in 1955. Kimberly did NOT sell #0384 to Kleve. PERIOD! Kimberly-Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Kimberly family has a town named after them in Wisconsin, not Illinois. The Ferraris were stored in the Kimberly boat house in Neenah Wi. In 1989 during the Atlanta trial, Kleve had no such Bill of Sale and no title as demanded by the lead attorney for the defendants. Some 5 or more years later, the forged and fraudulent bill of sale appears. Then, the fraudulent title is produced to coincide with the forged & fraudulent Bill of Sale. I am sorry to report this and further bust your bubble, but the architect of both documents is none other than, Karl Kleve himself. I cant state if he had accomplices or produced the forged BOS by himself but the evidence is undeniable. What are you saying about driving your car and getting it impounded for speeding? A policeman did not pull Kleve over in a 1955 Grand Prix racer and impound it for not having a motor or bodywork or interior or any other such nonsense. The State of Ohio arrested Kleve in the early 70s and made him do 6 months in jail for the abandoned and neglected remains of vehicles resulting in the 1st clean up of the Kleve junk. He was then confined to a mental institution from where he did escape during that time. The removed Ferrari engine along with Ferrari spares were discarded, lost or trashed and years later that original Ferrari engine was found in the possession of another engineer in Michigan. Now do you want to explain to me why that Ferrari engine was not seized by the FBI as stolen along with all of the spare parts that Kleve had to dispose of in the early 70s. Karl Kleve had plenty of time to take his junk into the country and store it outside of Cheviot Ohio.( 1972-1988) He did not, and would not do that, instead he fought by suing the State of Ohio until they finally seized his property and seized his mangled up junk cars. This was done legally by Court Order issued by a judge and jury and not by the police as you list as your example. Sir, you just do not have any compassion for the people of Ohio that had to endure this mess. This same mess that impacted the neighbors mental state, their real estate values, the lack of joy to come home and witness this pile in your face. . My hat is off to the brave men and women that finally put a stop to this madness and beautified the nasty Kleve junkyard. In conclusion, you may try to make Karl Kleve the victim here if you like. My only wish would be that you had this wonderful display of garbage in front of your home and we would all see you screaming the loudest for someone to Please do something. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Seespotrun (what is your real name, anyway?), The newspaper clipping you showed stated impound, not seizure - please explain the difference. Your posted clipping states that the contents were to be impounded, not seized. Further, please address the point that the Ferrari remains were stolen prior to the impound - whether the lot's contents were impounded or seized, the Ferrari remains were stolen (taken without permission) from that storage lot prior to that action, correct? Can you ever answer a direct question? No, pretending that your actions were out of sympathy for the poor neighbors of Kleve's junk lot is pretty pathetic - I care for their "suffering" about as much as you do, ie not one whit. It's a really lame excuse, in my opinion, that carries zero weight. Pretending that you acted out of concern for the fate of the Ferrari is pathetic, also - I have little doubt that your actions were taken for your potential financial benefit only, and not from any sense of preservation of a significant racing car. You took pains to point out that Joe Ford is only involved for the potential financial gain - are you pretending that your interest is any different? Your case, so far, is very far from convincing. This is actually really hilarious - faked compassion from a lawyer...
...and by whose authority... :=) did Kimberly or one of his successors take possession of his "discards" need a dumping ground for his "discards", making sure it was a few hundred miles away in Ohio where no one would notice him dumping it... then the questions about bill of sale and title come up... to which one can offer that the court determined that it must be Kleve"s property by abandonment... at this point all Kleve needs to show is that the court is in agreement with Kleve's ownership claims... it's on his property and ordered to remove it to meet comply with local ordinances... the court cannot offer a bill of sale or title beyond ruling the property is his... the court said it was Kleve's, there was no argument from anywhere to claim otherwise.... Kleve's proof of ownership is his court corder
Hello Jeff, glad to see someone use a real name. Who is "Dogday"? Can you, or "Dogday", answer what it was that Guy Anderson sold in 98-99, if it wasn't the remains of 0384AM? Not even a frame tube with an original serial number? How did Ferrari Classiche certify it after it was rebuilt, if it wasn't linked in any way to the genuine 0384AM? How does Bonhams get away with representing 0384AM as genuine (rebuilt), even though the ownership is disputed? Are you saying that if those remains weren't actually 0384AM, then Guy Anderson, who seems to be "Seespotrun", is the party guilty of fraud for selling remains represented to be from 0384AM?
No re-thinking required. Below are period photographs of what "never was." SeeSpotRun (Guy Anderson), Dogday, Ferrari Smoke, MBZGurl, Reproman . . . you guys need to stop your dishonesty and your dishonest attacks on Kleve, his family, his heirs, etc. 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
It is not uncommon for these cars to be rode hard and put away wet. That doesn't mean you can just take 'em. Property rights are property rights. You want to own it, then all you need do is buy it from the owner. If it shows up on a trailer, with the VIN plate pried off, no title, no prior Bill of Sale, and the guy only wants to be paid in cash, $50,000 in cash to be exact, well, I think the red flags are flyin'. There is NO WAY any jury will find that to be a good faith purchase, and IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE does title pass because you must be an owner to convey title to goods. This particular car was a rental car, part of Joe Kortan's 1970's fleet of rentals - Motor Cars Masculine. He was from ---- Cleveland, Ohio. Joe complained about the Ferrari's maintenance - instead of $2 for a distributor cap he had to pay $84. You could rent the GTO for $34 a day. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
No Sir, I am NOT saying the car was stolen. I am saying just the opposite! The car was NOT LISTED STOLEN anywhere in the World and that is a fact. So lets get that straight right up front. We (being the buyers) purchased the Ferrari Hulk that Gerald Roush ( The Ferrari Market Letter) identified as #0384 in Tucker Georgia ( !/1989) and not in Ohio. The purchase of the Hulk was made in good faith in Tucker Georgia and subject to the rules and laws of the State of Georgia. Ohio was not the purchase point and did not enter into the sale. Due diligence was performed to guarantee the remains of #0384 was lien free, NOT listed stolen, with NO ownership history and NO encumbrances. The vehicle search was initiated thru all reporting agencies including but not limited to: Marietta Police, Fulton Co. Sheriffs dept, NCIC, GCIC, Ohio State Patrol, Green Township Police dept, Ohio BMV, and Georgia DMV. There was absolutely No record of any ownership listed with any government agencies in the entire U.S.A. for the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. We were not convicted of theft, we were not convicted of possession of stolen goods, there was no proof of a rightful owner since no one could prove ownership of the hulk . The property was our property to do what we wanted to do with the Hulk. There were claims of ownership by other individuals later that year but all were unsubstantiated. You see here in the USA you are NOT required to title your Automobile if you plan on dismantling and destroying that item. But in Ohio if you destroy a car like Kleve did, you are required by Ohio law to relinquish the title to the State for cancelation and destruction. But Kleve did not have a title showing ownership of a 1955 Grand Prix roadster silver in color.
